Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 84 (JHR)

Rajesh Dey Dalal @ Pintu v. State of Jharkhand

2025-01-09

PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA

body2025
ORDER : PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA, J. 1. Heard, learned counsel for the petitioners as well as learned A.P.P. appearing for the State. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the apart from the other prayer instant criminal miscellaneous petition has been filed for quashing of the order dated 19.03.2019 whereby, the learned S.D.J.M., Chaibasa at West Singhbhum has issued process under Section 82 of the Cr.P.C . against the petitioner without service of summons as well as execution of warrant of arrest and without recording any reasons as stipulated in the concerned proclamation. The learned trial court has also ignored the principles laid down by this court in the leading judgment passed in “Md. Rustum Alam @ Rustam & Ors. versus The State of Jharkhand” Cr.M.P. No. 2722 of 2019 dated 27.04.2020. It is further submitted that the learned trial court appears to be confused about the nature of processes to be issued chronologically in criminal cases. It is obvious that summons was issued, but never served upon the petitioner and no service report is available on record. Thereafter, in a mechanical manner non-bailable warrant of arrest as well as process under Section 82 of Cr.P.C . was issued without recording the satisfaction of the court as required under law. In the meantime, pandemic COVID- 19 spread all over India and physical file was not present before the concerned court. Again further order-sheet shows the case was fixed for receiving execution report of N.B.W. as well as process under Section 82 of Cr.P.C . which clearly shows that learned court has never applied its judicial mind as process under Section 82 of Cr.P.C . was issued without obtaining execution report of non-bailable warrant. The petitioner has never deliberately disobeyed any process of law rather he is law abiding citizen and ready to participate in the proceedings of the case. 3. On the other hand, learned A.P.P. has fairly conceded in the matter that the impugned orders have been passed without following the procedure for issuance of processes under the Code of Criminal Procedure. 4. 3. On the other hand, learned A.P.P. has fairly conceded in the matter that the impugned orders have been passed without following the procedure for issuance of processes under the Code of Criminal Procedure. 4. I have gone through the entire order-sheet of the concerned trial court and find substance in the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner that the successive processes have been issued by the concerned court for appearance of the petitioner in mechanical manner without applying judicial mind towards the conditions required for issuance of processes under Section 82 of Cr.P.C . and without obtaining any service/execution report either of summons or Bailable warrant or N.B.W., the proclamation has been issued. Even, the manner of publication of proclamation or date of appearance has also not been mentioned. 5. Considering the aforesaid aspects of the case, the impugned order for issuing for process under Section 82 of Cr.P.C . is hereby quashed and this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition is allowed.