Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 1971 (JHR)

Kishor Mandal v. The State of Jharkhand

2025-10-06

ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY

body2025
JUDGMENT : ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY, J. 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 the prayer to quash the order dated 17.05.2022 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Giridih in Criminal Revision No. 39 of 2022 which was filed challenging the order dated 18.04.2011 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Giridih in connection with Gandey P.S. Case No.60 of 2005, corresponding to G.R. No.1670 of 2005 whereby and where under, the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Giridih has issued the proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. against the petitioner, who is one of the accused person of the case. 3. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that though the petitioner also prayed for quashing the order dated 18.07.2012 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Giridih in the said case by which the attachment order of the property of the petitioner was also issued but the petitioner does not press the said prayer and confines his prayer only to quash the order dated 18.04.2011 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Giridih in connection with Gandey P.S. Case No.60 of 2005, corresponding to G.R. No.1670 of 2005 by which the proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. was issued. 4. Accordingly, the order dated 18.07.2012 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Giridih is rejected as not pressed. 5. So far as the order dated 18.04.2011 is concerned, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Giridih has issued the proclamation under Section 82 of Cr.P.C. without following the due process of law and without recording the satisfaction that the petitioner is absconding or concealing himself to evade his arrest which is a sine qua non for issuing proclamation under Section 82 of Cr.P.C. and without fixing any time or place for the appearance of the petitioner who is the accused person of the case; vide order dated 17.05.2022 in Criminal Revision No.39 of 2022, the learned Sessions Judge, Giridih without taking into consideration the settled principle of law, as to when the proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. can be issued, has dismissed the said criminal revision in a mechanical manner, without application of mind. Hence, it is submitted that the prayer as prayed for by the petitioner in this criminal miscellaneous petition be allowed. 6. Learned Special Public Prosecutor on the other hand opposes the prayer and submits that the very fact that the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Giridih has issued the proclamation under Section 82 of Cr.P.C. itself shows that there were materials available in the record for the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Giridih to be satisfied that there is justification for issuance of such proclamation. Hence, it is submitted 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, it is pertinent to mention here that by now it is a settled principle of law that the court which issues the proclamation under Section 82 of Cr.P.C. must record its satisfaction that the accused in respect of whom the proclamation under Section 82 of Cr.P.C. is made, is absconding or concealing himself to evade his arrest and in case the court decides to issue proclamation under Section 82 of Cr.P.C., it must mention the time and place for appearance of the petitioner in the order itself by which the proclamation under Section 82 of Cr.P.C. is issued. Perusal of the record reveals that in the order dated 18.04.2011 passed in connection with Gandey P.S. Case No.60 of 2005, corresponding to G.R. No.1670 of 2005, the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Giridih has not recorded its satisfaction that the petitioner is absconding or concealing himself to evade his arrest nor fixed any time or place for appearance of the petitioner, who is the accused person of this case in respect of whom, the said proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. was issued. The learned Sessions Judge, Giridih has also committed a grave error in dismissing the Criminal Revision No. 39 of 2022 without taking into consideration the essential requirement for issuing the proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. as stated above in the foregoing paragraphs of this judgment. Hence, this Court has no hesitation in holding that both the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Giridih in the order dated 18.04.2011 as well as the learned Sessions Judge, Giridih in the order dated 17.05.2022 passed in Criminal Revision No. 39 of 2022 have committed a grave illegality. Hence, this Court has no hesitation in holding that both the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Giridih in the order dated 18.04.2011 as well as the learned Sessions Judge, Giridih in the order dated 17.05.2022 passed in Criminal Revision No. 39 of 2022 have committed a grave illegality. Hence, the order dated 18.04.2011 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Giridih in connection with Gandey P.S. Case No.60 of 2005, corresponding to G.R. No.1670 of 2005 as well as the order dated 17.05.2022 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Giridih in Criminal Revision No. 39 of 2022 be quashed and set aside. 8. Accordingly, the order dated 18.04.2011 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Giridih in connection with Gandey P.S. Case No.60 of 2005, corresponding to G.R. No.1670 of 2005 as well as the order dated 17.05.2022 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Giridih in Criminal Revision No. 39 of 2022 is quashed and set aside. 9. The learned Judicial Magistrate 1 st Class, Giridih may pass a fresh order in accordance with law. 10. In the result, this criminal miscellaneous petition is allowed.