JUDGMENT : Heard Mr. Abhishek Krishna Gupta, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mrs. Priya Shrestha, learned Spl.P.P. for the 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. I.A. No. 540 of 2022 has been filed for amendment in the prayer portion of the petition. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that although the order dated 23.02.2017, by which warrant of arrest has been issued against the petitioner has been annexed with the petition, but inadvertently in the prayer portion, the said order has not been prayed to be quashed, for that this petition has been filed. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the State has got no serious objection, if the prayer made in the I.A. is allowed. 6. In view of the above, the prayer made in the said I.A. is allowed. 7. Let this I.A. be treated as a part of this criminal miscellaneous petition. 8. This criminal miscellaneous petition has been filed for quashing of the orders dated 23.02.2017, 07.05.2018 and 13.11.2019, whereby warrant of arrest, and processes under Sections 82 and 83 Cr.P.C. respectively have been directed to be issued against the petitioner, in connection with Chaibasa (Sadar) P.S. Case No. 43 of 2016 corresponding to G.R. No. 247 of 2016 (S), pending in the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chaibasa. 9. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the orders issuing warrant of arrest and process under Section 82 Cr.P.C. are not in accordance with law. He submits that the guidelines issued by this Court in the case of Md. Rustam Alam @ Rustum & Ors. V. The State of Jharkhand, reported in 2020 (2) JLJR 712 has not been followed. He further submits that the petitioner has several chronic diseases and also suffering from parkinson disease and kidney problem. 10. Learned counsel appearing for the State by referring to the order dated 07.05.2018 submits that the petitioner has preferred A.B.A. No. 451 of 2017, which was stood dismissed on 30.06.2017. She submits that after dismissal of the said A.B.A., the order dated 07.05.2018 has been passed. 11. 10. Learned counsel appearing for the State by referring to the order dated 07.05.2018 submits that the petitioner has preferred A.B.A. No. 451 of 2017, which was stood dismissed on 30.06.2017. She submits that after dismissal of the said A.B.A., the order dated 07.05.2018 has been passed. 11. The Court has perused the order dated 07.05.2018, from which, it transpires that the said order has been passed after considering that the A.B.A. No. 451 of 2017 filed by the petitioner was rejected on 30.06.2017. However, it transpires that on 30.06.2017, the said A.B.A. was dismissed for default, which was subsequently restored by order dated 11.05.2018 passed in Cr.M.P. No. 1301 of 2018. It further transpires that the said A.B.A. was dismissed on merit on 11.09.2019. 12. In view of the above facts and considering the materials available on record and also in the interest of justice, the petitioner is directed to appear in the concerned Court on the date fixed by this Court. In the event of appearance of the petitioner, the aforesaid impugned orders shall not be given effect to. 13. Accordingly, the petitioner is directed to appear before the concerned Court on 28.02.2022. If the petitioner shall appear on or before that date, the impugned orders dated 23.02.2017, 07.05.2018 and 13.11.2019 shall not be given effect. 14. Any petition filed by the petitioner in the concerned Court shall be considered and disposed of on the same day. The Court will also consider the chronic ailments of the petitioner and will decide the petition on merits on the same day. 15. With the above observation and direction, this criminal miscellaneous petition is disposed of.