Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 816 (JHR)

Arun Tiwari @ Arun Kumar @ Mantu Tiwari, son of Lalmani Tiwari v. State of Jharkhand

2023-06-28

ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY

body2023
JUDGMENT : 1. Heard the parties. 2. This criminal miscellaneous petition has been filed invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. with a prayer for quashing the order dated 09.11.2022 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Palamu whereby and where under, the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Palamu issued proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. against the petitioners in connection with Untari Road P.S. Case No. 32 of 2022 registered for the offences punishable under Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code, Section 21 of MMDR Act, 1957, Rule 54 of JMMC Rule, 2004 and Rule 13 (1) of JIMTS Rule, 2017. 3. Perusal of the record reveals that the I.O. of the case returned the non-bailable warrant of arrest along with execution report of the warrant and prayed for issue of proclamation under section 82 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 4. The learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Palamu allowed the said prayer and directed the office to issue the proclamation against the four accused persons of the case including the two petitioners of this case. 5. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the learned Magistrate has failed to record its satisfaction that the petitioners were absconding or concealing themselves to evade their arrest. It is next submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the learned Magistrate has not fixed any date and place for the accused persons to appear which is a requirement of law for issue of proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. Hence, the same be quashed and set aside. 6. Learned Spl. P.P. on the other hand vehemently opposes the prayer to quash order dated 09.11.2022 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Palamau and submits that this criminal miscellaneous petition being without any merit be dismissed. 7. Having heard the submissions made at the Bar and after going through the materials in the record, this Court finds that there is total non-application of mind by the learned Judicial Magistrate. It appears that somebody else other than the learned Judicial Magistrate has drawn up the order sheet and the learned Judicial Magistrate has put his initials without caring to even mention his name. It appears that somebody else other than the learned Judicial Magistrate has drawn up the order sheet and the learned Judicial Magistrate has put his initials without caring to even mention his name. The order do not reveal as to under which provision of law, the proclamation has been issued and in the remarks column apparently a clerk has mentioned “issue 82 Cr.P.C.” and such non-application of mind on behalf of the learned Judicial Magistrate , shows its incompetence. 8. Since the learned Judicial Magistrate has failed to record its satisfaction that the accused persons against whom the proclamation apparently under Section 82 Cr.P.C. has been issued were absconding or were concealing themselves to evade their arrest nor any date and place has been fixed for appearance, the order dated 09.11.2022 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Palamu in connection with Untari Road P.S. Case No. 32 of 2022 being not sustainable in law is set aside. 9. Before parting, the Registrar General of this Court is directed to send the copy of this order to the Principal District Judge, Palamu at Daltonganj with a direction to impress upon the learned Judicial Magistrate concerned to desist putting his initials on order sheet written by someone else without application of mind while issuing the proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. and the learned Magistrate concerned be further impressed upon to record its satisfaction regarding whether the accused persons of the case are absconding or concealing themselves to evade their arrest and in case, it is satisfied, it must fix the date and place for appearance of the accused persons, at least after 30 days from the date of the issue of proclamation. 10. The learned Magistrate if satisfied may pass a fresh order in accordance with law. 11. In the result, this criminal miscellaneous petition is allowed.