Jharkhand High Court
Chhatrabhuj Singh @ Surendra Singh vs The State Of Jharkhand ... Opposite ... on 7 August, 2025
Author: Anil Kumar Choudhary
Bench: Anil Kumar Choudhary
(2025:JHHC:22983)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr.M.P. No.3089 of 2019
------
Chhatrabhuj Singh @ Surendra Singh, aged about 47 years, s/o- Chandrma Singh, R/o Village Sarna, P.O. Sarna, P.S.-Sarna, Dist.-
Bhojpur, Bihar ... Petitioner
Versus
The State of Jharkhand ... Opposite Party
------
For the Petitioner : Mr. Soumitra Baroi, Advocate
For the State : Mrs. Priya Shrestha, Spl. P.P
(through V.C.)
------
PRESENT
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY
By the Court:- Heard the parties.
2. This Criminal Miscellaneous Petition has been filed invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure Code, with a prayer to quash the order dated 15.06.2019 passed in Criminal Revision No.92 of 2019 by the Sessions Judge, Dhanbad, whereby and whereunder the learned Sessions Judge dismissed the said Cr. Revision preferred by the petitioner challenging the order dated 19.03.2019 passed by the learned C.J.M., Dhanbad wherein the learned C.J.M., Dhanbad issued the attachment order of property of the petitioner under Section 83 of Cr.P.C in connection with Dhanbad (Bankmore) P.S. Case No.515 of 2012 corresponding to G.R. No.2024 of 2012. Further prayer has been made to quash the order dated 19.03.2019 passed by the learned C.J.M., Dhanbad, whereby and whereunder the learned C.J.M., Dhanbad has passed the attachment of property of the petitioner in connection with the said case and 1 Cr. M.P. No.3089 of 2019 (2025:JHHC:22983) also to quash the orders dated 08.10.2013 and 08.03.2018 by which for the second time the proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. has been issued.
3. The brief fact of the case is that on 08.10.2013 the prayer was made by the Investigating Officer of the case for issuance of the proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C but the learned C.J.M., Dhanbad without recording the satisfaction that the petitioner is absconding or concealing himself to evade his arrest and without fixing any time and place for his appearance issued the proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. On 08.03.2018 again with a prayer to issue proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C was made and learned C.J.M., Dhanbad without recording any satisfaction that the petitioner is absconding or concealing himself to evade his arrest, directed to issue the proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. against the petitioner. On 19.03.2019, the I.O. of the Dhanbad (Bankmore) P.S. Case No.515 of 2012 made a prayer before the learned C.J.M., Dhanbad to issue attachment order of property of the petitioner along with the accused person of the said case but learned C.J.M., Dhanbad without mentioning the descripting of any property to be attached, issued the attachment order of the property under Section 83 of the Cr.P.C. Though the petitioner challenged the said order dated 19.03.2019 by way of filing Cr. Revision No.92 of 2019 but the same was dismissed by the learned Sessions Judge, Dhanbad after considering that in the report submitted by the local police, it has been mentioned that the petitioner after issuance of the proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C., instead of surrendering to the jurisdiction of the court, has been trying to move away the movable property outside the jurisdiction of the court. It is submitted by 2 Cr. M.P. No.3089 of 2019 (2025:JHHC:22983) the learned counsel for the petitioner that proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C was issued vide order dated 08.03.2019 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 sine qua non for issuing the proclamation under Section of 82 Cr.P.C and without recording any satisfaction that the proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C was ever made and without mentioning the description of the property to be attached, illegally issued the attachment order under Section 83 Cr.P.C. It is next submitted that the learned Sessions Judge, Dhanbad also failed to take note of this fact in Cr. Revision No.92 of 2019 and dismissed the same illegally. Therefore, it is submitted that the prayer as made in the Cr.M.P. may be allowed.
4. On the other hand, learned Spl.P.P. appearing for the State vehemently opposes the prayer for quashing the said orders passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dhanbad as well as learned Sessions Judge, Dhanbad and submits that the very fact that the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dhanbad has ordered for issuing of proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C and order of attachment under Section 83 Cr.P.C. itself shows that there were materials in the record for the learned C.J.M., Dhanbad to be satisfied that there is justification for issuance of said proclamation and attachment order. Hence, it is submitted that this Cr.M.P, being without any merit, be dismissed.
5. Having heard the submissions made in the bar and after going through materials available on the records, it is pertinent to mention here 3 Cr. M.P. No.3089 of 2019 (2025:JHHC:22983) that by now it is a settled principle of law that the court which issues the proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C must record its satisfaction that the accused in respect of whom the proclamation under Section 82 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 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 Cr.P.C is issued. As already indicated above since the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dhanbad has neither 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, this Court has no hesitation in holding that the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dhanbad has committed grave illegality by issuing said proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C without complying with the mandatory requirements of law. Hence, the said orders dated 08.10.2013 and 08.03.2018 are not sustainable in law and are liable to be quashed and set aside.
6. So far order dated 19.03.2019 is concerned, it is a settled principle of law that the court issuing proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C may for reasons to be recorded in writing at any time after the issuance of proclamation, may order for attachment of any property movable or immovable or both belonging to the proclaimed person. Now, in the absence of any material in the record to suggest that the proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C was in fact made in accordance with law, certainly the learned C.J.M., Dhanbad has committed gross illegality by passing the order of 4 Cr. M.P. No.3089 of 2019 (2025:JHHC:22983) attachment of property without mentioning the description of the property either movable or immovable to be attached and without recording any reason in writing about the need for passing such order of attachment, hence the same is also not sustainable in the law, accordingly the same is liable to be quashed and set aside. The learned Sessions Judge, Dhanbad ought to have taken into consideration if any material was there in the record for the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dhanbad to be satisfied that there was any justifiable reason for issuing a warrant of attachment of property of the petitioner and the same was required to be reflected in the order itself; but the same having not been reflected in the order itself, which is impugned before the learned Sessions Judge, Dhanbad, this Court has no hesitation in holding that the learned Sessions judge, Dhanbad has committed grave illegality in dismissing the said Cr. Revision No.92 of 2019.
7. Accordingly, the said Cr. Revision No.92 of 2019 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Dhanbad is not sustainable in the law, accordingly the order dated 19.03.2019 passed by the C.J.M., Dhanbad in connection with Dhanbad (Bankmore) P.S. Case No.515 of 2012 corresponding to G.R. No.2024 of 2012 and the order dated 15.06.2019 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Dhanbad in Cr. Revision No.92 of 2019 is hereby quashed set aside.
8. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dhanbad may pass a fresh order in accordance with law.
9. In the result, this Cr.M.P. stands allowed.
5 Cr. M.P. No.3089 of 2019
(2025:JHHC:22983)
10. In view of the disposal of this Cr.M.P., the interim relief granted earlier vide order dated 17.12.2019, is vacated.
11. Registry is directed to intimate the court concerned forthwith.
(Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi Dated the 07st of August, 2025 AFR/ Rohit 6 Cr. M.P. No.3089 of 2019