Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 604 (JHR)

Pradip Gope @ Pradeep Gope v. State of Jharkhand

2020-06-16

ANANDA SEN

body2020
ORDER : I.A. No. 351 of 2020 1. By filing this interlocutory application, the petitioner has prayed for amendment in the paragraph 1 of the criminal miscellaneous petition. He prays to correct the dates. It is prayed that the date by which warrant of arrest has been issued be read as 15.09.2018, the date on which processes under section 82 of Cr.P.C. has been issued be read as 05.10.2018 and the date on which process under section 83 of Cr.P.C. has been issued be read as 26.11.2018. 2. Considering the submission of the counsel for the petitioner since there is no serious opposition made by the State, I am inclined to allow this interlocutory application. 3. Accordingly, this interlocutory application stands allowed and the same will form the part of the main petition. Cr. M.P. No. 3807 of 2019 4. Heard the counsel for the petitioners and the counsel for the State through video conferencing. They have no complain with respect to the audio and video clarity and quality. 5. The petitioner in this application has challenged the order dated 15.09.2018 by which warrant of arrest has been issued. He has also challenged the order dated 05.10.2018 by which the processes under section 82 of Cr.P.C. has been issued. The order dated 26.11.2018 is also under challenge by which attachment order under section 83 of the Cr.P.C. has been issued. 6. The counsel for the petitioner submits that all these orders are absolutely cryptic and does not reflect any subjective satisfaction as to why the processes under section 82 of Cr.P.C. and the attachment order under section 83 of Cr.P.C. has been issued. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submits that this Court has passed a detailed judgment in case of Md. Rustum Alam @ Rustam and Others vs. State of Jharkhand in Cr. M.P. No. 2722 of 2019 by which the Court has held that the cryptic order cannot be passed while issuing process and order of attachment under sections 82 and 83 of Cr.P.C. 7. Mr. Ravi Prakash, learned Addl. P.P. appears on behalf of the State and opposes the prayer of the petitioners. 8. After hearing the counsel for the parties, I have gone through the impugned order. Mr. Ravi Prakash, learned Addl. P.P. appears on behalf of the State and opposes the prayer of the petitioners. 8. After hearing the counsel for the parties, I have gone through the impugned order. After going through the impugned order I find that all the orders are absolutely cryptic and are not in conformity with the provision of law as laid down. The subjective satisfaction has not been recorded while issuing process under section 82 of Cr.P.C. or either under section 83 of Cr.P.C. I find that all these orders is not in conformity with the judgment passed by this Court in the case of Md. Rustum Alam @ Rustam and Others vs. State of Jharkhand (supra). Thus having no other alternative, I am inclined to quash all these three orders dated 15.09.2018, 05.10.2018 and 26.11.2018 passed by A.C.J.M. Seraikella in connection with Nimdih P.S. Case No. 24 of 2018. These orders are hereby quashed and the matter is remanded to the court below to pass order afresh in accordance with law. 9. This order is only applicable so far as petitioner no. 3 is concerned as the petitioner nos. 1 and 2 has already been arrested which has been recorded in order dated 13.01.2020. 10. With the aforesaid observations, this application stands allowed. Application allowed.