Jharkhand High Court
Prakash Thakur vs The State Of Jharkhand on 1 December, 2021
Author: Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi
Bench: Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr.M.P. No. 1869 of 2021
Prakash Thakur, aged about 71 years, son of late Mahendra Thakur, resident
of 112, Shivpur, Shiv Mandir Road, Shivpur, P.O. and P.S. Poraiyahat, District-
Godda
...... Petitioner
Versus
...............
1.The State of Jharkhand
2. Sabita Devi ...... Opposite Parties
---------
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI
---------
For the Petitioner : Mr. Aashish Kumar Advocate For the State : Mr. Shailendra Kumar Tiwari, A.P.P. 5/Dated: 01/12/2021 Heard Mr. Aashish Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Shailendra Kumar Tiwari, learned counsel for the State.
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. The present petition has been filed for quashing of orders dated 07.03.2005, 09.01.2006 and 02.06.2007 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Dumka in connection with P.C.R. Case No. 419/2002 whereby process under sections 82, 83 Cr.P.C. and permanent warrant of arrest respectively have been issued against the petitioner.
4. Mr. Aashish Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that without receiving service report of summons, process of section 82 Cr.P.C. has been issued. He submits that subsequent orders are also bad in law and also not surviving. He further submits that process of 82 Cr.P.C. has not been issued in compliance of judgment passed by this Court in the case of "Md. Rustum Alam @ Rustam & Ors. Vs. The State of Jharkhand, reported in 2 2020 (2) JLJR 712.
5. Mr. Shailendra Kumar Tiwari, learned counsel for the State submits that there is no illegality in the impugned orders.
6. From perusal of impugned order dated 07.03.2005, it transpires that service report has not been received which has been recorded in order date 07.03.2005 itself and by that order process under section 82 Cr.P.C. has been issued. There is no satisfaction recorded by the trial court while issuing such order. There is no indication of Form-IV which is mandatory in view of judgment rendered by this Court in the case of "Md. Rustum Alam @ Rustam (supra). As the order dated 07.03.2005 is bad in law, subsequent orders are not surviving.
7. In view of the above facts, orders dated 07.03.2005, 09.01.2006 and 02.06.2007 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Dumka in connection with P.C.R. Case No. 419/2002 whereby process under sections 82, 83 Cr.P.C. and permanent warrant of arrest respectively have been issued against the petitioner, are hereby quashed.
8. The matter is remitted back to the court of learned Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Dumka to proceed afresh in accordance with law.
9. With the aforesaid observation and direction, this criminal miscellaneous petition is allowed and disposed of. I.A., if any, stands disposed of.
(Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.) Satyarthi/ 3 4 5