Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 473 (JHR)

Karu Bhuyan v. State Of Jharkhand

2019-02-14

SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR

body2019
JUDGMENT Shree Chandrashekhar, J. - The petitioners have challenged several orders passed in G(F) Case No.60 of 2010; he is primarily aggrieved of the orders by which processes have been issued against them. 2. Contention raised on behalf of the petitioners is that without a report on valid service of summons/bailable warrant of arrest, non-bailable warrant of arrest cannot be issued against an accused. 3. On the basis of a prosecution report dated 25.02.2010, G(F) Case No.60 of 2010 was initiated for the offence under section 33(i) of the Indian Forest Act, 1927. The allegation against the petitioners is that they were cleaning the bushes and collecting the stones and when they saw the police party they started a quarrel with them. 4. No doubt, the exercise of powers under section 73 Cr.P.C must be founded on the materials produced before the Magistrate, however, it is not every case in which benefits of technicality can be extended to an accused in a proceeding under section 482 Cr.P.C. The allegation in the complaint, the manner of occurrence, the conduct of an accused etc. are the factors which have to be kept in mind by the Court in a criminal case. When the impugned orders passed by the Magistrate are examined in the context of the proceeding in G(F) Case No.60 of 2010 and the conduct of the petitioners, I am of the opinion that if the orders by which non-bailable warrant of arrest has been issued against the petitioners and the subsequent orders issuing processes against them are not interfered, it would result in serious prejudice to them. 5. Without a valid service report on record, non-bailable warrant of arrest should not have been issued by the Magistrate. Accordingly, the order dated 27.05.2014 by which non-bailable warrant of arrest has been issued against the petitioners is quashed. Consequently, impugned orders dated 03.06.2017 and 09.08.2018 are also quashed. 6. In the result, Cr. M.P. No.162 of 2019 is allowed, however, the petitioners shall appear before the court concerned positively on the next date of hearing.