Jharkhand High Court
Shiv Kumar Prasad @ Shew Kumar Prasad vs The State Of Jharkhand on 22 June, 2021
Author: Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi
Bench: Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND, RANCHI
----
Cr.M.P. No. 728 of 2021
----
1.Shiv Kumar Prasad @ Shew Kumar Prasad, s/o Moti Lal Prasad aged about 61 years
2.Uma Devi, w/o Shiv Kumar Prasad aged about 53 years
3.Anil Prasad @ Anil Kumar, s/o Shiv Kumar Prasad, aged about 31 years
4.Jayanti Prasad @ Jyanti Prasad, d/o Shiv Kumar Prasad @ Shew Kumar Prasad aged about 28 years All r/o 17 Srinath Poral, PS Bantara, PO Haora, Dist. Howrah, West Bengal, 711101 ..... Petitioners
-- Versus --
1.The State of Jharkhand
2.Anita Nonia, w/o Sunil Prasad, D/o late Ram Chandra Nonia, at present residing at Tunbi Tola, Near Munda Tea Stall, Kokar, PO-GPO, PS-Sadar, Dist. Ranchi, PIN-834001 ...... Opposite Party
----
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI
---
For the Petitioners :- Mr. Bharat Kumar, Advocate For the State :- Mrs. Niki Sinha, APP
----
3/22.06.2021 Heard Mr. Bharat Kumar, the learned counsel for the petitioners and Mrs. Niki Sinha, the learned State counsel.
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. Mr. Bharat Kumar, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners undertakes to remove the defects within two weeks. If the defects are not removed within the aforesaid period, the office will list this matter before the appropriate Bench.
4. The petitioners have preferred this petition for quashing the order dated 10.04.2018, order dated 22.05.2019 and the order dated 07.12.2019 whereby bailable warrant, non-bailable warrant and processes under section 82 Cr.P.C respectively have been issued against the petitioners in the Protest cum Complaint Case No.3171 of 2017 by Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Ranchi. Mr. Bharat Kumar, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, at the outset, submits that the petitioners are father in law, mother in law, married sister in law and un-married brother in law. He submits that this case is arising out of section 498A/323/341/313 IPC and section 3&4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. He submits that the petitioners have filed A.B.P.No.914/2018 and the 2 husband of the complainant Sunil had filed A.B.P.No.904/2018. The husband of the complainant was looking after the case and he informed the petitioners that the case has been compromised and husband and wife are living together. He further submits that by order dated 12.03.2018 summons were ordered to be issued to the petitioners and without execution of the summons the order dated 10.04.2018 has been issued whereby bailable warrant has been issued and by order dated 22.05.2019 non-bailable warrant has been issued in absence of any execution report. He submits that the petitioners were not knowing about the dismissal of anticipatory bail petitions filed by them.
5. Mrs. Niki Sinha, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent State tried to justify the impugned orders and submits that the petitioners were having full knowledge about the case and inspite of that they have not appeared and there is no illegality in the impugned orders.
6. Having gone through the impugned orders which have been brought on record, it transpires that execution report of bailable warrant is not there prior to issuing of non-bailable warrant. The report with regard to summons and bailable warrant is also not on the record. On perusal of the order dated 07.12.2019, it transpires that there is no sufficient reason and the satisfaction of the Magistrate as it is condition precedent for issuing processes, direction under section 82 Cr.PC has not been followed. Moreover, the parameters laid down by this Court in the case of "Md. Rustum Alam @ Rustam v. State of Jharkhand " reported in 2020 (2) JLJR 712 is also absent in the impugned orders.
7. Accordingly, the impugned orders dated 10.04.2018, 22.05.2019 and 07.12.2019 are quashed.
8. The matter is remitted back to the court below to proceed afresh strictly in terms of Cr.P.C and the judgment laid down by this Court in "Md. Rustum Alam @ Rustam v. State of Jharkhand " (supra).
9. Cr.M.P. No. 728 of 2021 stands disposed of.
( Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J) SI/