Jharkhand High Court
Punam Devi @ Punam Chaurasiya vs The State Of Jharkhand ..... Opposite ... on 7 August, 2023
Author: Anil Kumar Choudhary
Bench: Anil Kumar Choudhary
1 Cr.M.P. No. 2247 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr.M.P. No. 2247 of 2023
Punam Devi @ Punam Chaurasiya, aged about 29 years, wife of
Kaushal Chaurasiya, resident of - Ompur colony Rajgamar, P.O.
& P.S.- Rajgamar, Dist.- Korba (Chhattisgarh)
...... Petitioner
Versus
The State of Jharkhand ..... Opposite Party
For the Petitioner : Mr. Arun Kumar, Adv.
For the State : Mr. Vineet Kr. Vashistha , Spl.PP
PRESENT
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY
By the Court:- Heard the parties.
2. This Criminal Miscellaneous Petition has been filed with a prayer for quashing the order dated 29.03.2023 and also the order dated 09.06.2023 passed by learned SDJM, Palamau in connection with Chainpur P.S. case no. 108 of 2017 (S ) corresponding to G.R. No. 1433 of 2017 (S ) involving the offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 149, 153(A), 295, 295(A), 307, 323, 325, 341, 353, 332, 337, 427, 452, 504, 506, 120B of the IPC, Section 27 of Arms Act, Sections 3, 4, 5 of Explosive Substances Act and Section 3 and 4 of Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984 whereby and where under the proclamation under Section 82 CrPC has been issued against the petitioner.
3. The brief facts of the case is that non - bailable warrant of arrest has been issued against the petitioner. Police on ten different occupations, raided the house of the petitioner. On each of the ten dates, which have been mentioned in the said order dated 29.03.2022 even after the same, the police could not arrest the petitioner; as, the petitioner was found absconding. The I.O. prayed for issuance of the proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. Learned SDJM, Palamau from the materials placed before him, including the supplementary case diary, was satisfied that the petitioner is absconding and it is not possible for the police to arrest the accused person, hence, it issued proclamation under Section 82 2 Cr.M.P. No. 2247 of 2023 CrPC fixing the date and time as 15.05.2023 at 7.00 AM before the court for appearance of the petitioner.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the allegation against the petitioner is false and the petitioner is daughter of Mukhiya. The requisition for issuing the proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C was filed without execution of warrant of arrest and thereafter, vide order dated 09.06.2023, the process under Section 83 Cr.P.C has also been issued for attachment of property. It is next submitted that the petitioner is Deputy Sarpanch, Rajgamar, in the district of Korba, and permanently residing there, hence, it is submitted that order dated 29.03.2023 and also the order dated 09.06.2023 passed by learned SDJM, Palamau in connection with Chainpur P.S. case no. 108 of 2017 (S ) corresponding to G.R. No. 1433 of 2017 (S ) be quashed and set aside.
5. Learned Special PP vehemently opposes the prayer for quashing the order dated 29.03.2023 and also the order dated 09.06.2023 passed by learned SDJM, Palamau in connection with Chainpur P.S. case no. 108 of 2017 (S ) corresponding to G.R. No. 1433 of 2017 (S ). Learned Special PP submits that there is no illegality in the said orders. It is next submitted that if at all, the order for attachment has been made for the property within the jurisdiction of the learned SDJM, in the district of Palamau and if at all the petitioner is not the resident of Palamau, then there is no reason, as to why the petitioner will be aggrieved by the attachment of the property at Palamau, hence, it is submitted as the petitioner is suppressing the material facts and otherwise also this criminal miscellaneous petition is without any merit; hence the same be dismissed.
6. Having heard the submissions made at the Bar and after going through the materials available in the record, it is pertinent to mention here that it is crystal clear from the order dated 29.03.2023, wherein learned SDJM, Palamau has discussed in details about the circumstances, in which, it thought it proper to issue the proclamation under Section 82 of Cr.P.C for compelling the appearance of the petitioner inter alia including that on ten different dates, which have been mentioned in the said order, the I.O. raided the house of the petitioner but the petitioner could not be found. The learned SDJM, Palamau being satisfied that the petitioner is absconding, issued the proclamation under section 82 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, fixing the time and place for appearance of the petitioner. As even after that, the petitioner did not appear before 3 Cr.M.P. No. 2247 of 2023 the SDJM, Palamau on 09.06.2023, the I.O. prayed for issuance for attachment of the property of the petitioner, under Section 83 Cr.P.C. As it transpired to the learned SDJM, Palamau upon such application of I.O.; after going through the copy of the case diary and the execution report of the proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C and submissions made by the I.O., that the case has been registered for the serious offences against the petitioner and as per the execution report of the I.O., the accused- petitioner was evading her arrest and even though the I.O., pasted the copy of the proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C on the main gate of Civil Court, Palamau premises as well as on the front door of residence of accused-petitioner and the I.O. produced the photograph of the same, but even then, the petitioner did not appear before learned trial court, hence, learned SDJM, Palamau was of the opinion that the materials are enough to satisfy him that the petitioner is evading her arrest and it appears that it is not possible for the police to arrest the accused despite the issuance of the proclamation under Section 82 of Cr.P.C, therefore, it is expedient to issue the process under Section 83 of Cr.P.C. Accordingly, the learned SDJM, allowed the petition for issuance of the process for attachment of property of the petitioner under Section 83 Cr.P.C. Hence, this court is of the considered view that there is no illegality either in the Order dated 29.03.2023 or in the Order dated 09.06.2023 passed by learned SDJM, Palamau in connection with Chainpur P.S. case no. 108 of 2017 (S ) corresponding to G.R. No. 1433 of 2017 (S ).
7. Thus, this criminal miscellaneous petition being without any merit is dismissed.
(Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi Dated, the 7th August, 2023 Smita /AFR