JUDGMENT : SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI, J. 1. Heard Mr. Kripa Shankar Nanda, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Mrs. Priya Shrestha, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent/State. 2. This petition has been heard through Video Conferencing in view of the guidelines of the High Court taking into account the situation arising due to COVID-19 pandemic. None of the parties have complained about any technical snag of audio-video and with their consent this matter has been heard. 3. This petition has been filed for quashing the order dated 29.07.2021 passed in Deoghar (Cyber) P.S. Case No. 30/2021 (Supplementary) by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-II, Deoghar whereby processes under Section 82 Cr.P.C. has been directed to be issued against the petitioner. 4. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the petitioner was availing remedy under the Cr.P.C. and he has filed A.B.P. before the learned Sessions Judge which was rejected and thereafter he has preferred A.B.A. No. 5008/2021 and during the pendency of this A.B.A. the impugned order has been passed whereby processes under section 82 Cr.P.C. has been directed to be issued. He submits that in view of this order, he has been compelled to withdraw the A.B.A. 5. Mrs. Priya Shrestha, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent State submits that there is no illegality in the impugned order as the petitioner only to delay the matter has filed the petition. 6. On perusal of the impugned order dated 29.07.2021 it transpires that on the application of the I.O. the said order has been passed. The petitioner has already availed the remedy under the Cr.P.C. and during pendency of the A.B.A. the said order has been passed and he was compelled to withdraw the A.B.A. on 04.08.2021 whereby the order has been passed for issuance of process under section 82 Cr.P.C. on 29.07.2021. There is no indication of time and place of appearance in terms of Form-IV Cr.P.C. 7. In view of the above facts and considering the law laid down by this Court in the case of Md. Rustum Alam @ Rustam and Others vs. State of Jharkhand, 2020 (2) JLJR 712 , the impugned order dated 29.07.2021 is quashed. 8. The matter is remitted back to the concerned court to proceed afresh in accordance with law. 9. Cr. Rustum Alam @ Rustam and Others vs. State of Jharkhand, 2020 (2) JLJR 712 , the impugned order dated 29.07.2021 is quashed. 8. The matter is remitted back to the concerned court to proceed afresh in accordance with law. 9. Cr. M.P. No. 1938 of 2021 stands disposed of.