Jharkhand High Court
Nitesh Kumar Singh @ Nitesh Singh vs The State Of Jharkhand ...... Opposite ... on 9 August, 2021
Author: Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi
Bench: Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND, RANCHI
----
Cr.M.P. No. 1246 of 2021
----
1.Nitesh Kumar Singh @ Nitesh Singh, aged about 31 years, son of Ramlal Singh
2.Ramlal Singh, aged about 65 years, son of late Ramayan Singh
3.Usha Devi @ Usha Singh, aged about 60 years, wife of Ramlal Singh
4.Rupesh Singh, aged about 38 years, son of Ramlal Singh All residents of village Ded Gawon, PO-Jamalpur, PS-Dhina, District-Chandauli, State-Uttar Pradesh ..... Petitioners
-- Versus --
The State of Jharkhand ...... Opposite Party
----
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI
---
For the Petitioners :- Mr. Pratik Sen, Advocate For the Informant :- Mr. Niranjan Kumar, Advocate For the State :- Mr. Ravi Prakash, Advocate
----
4/09.08.2021 Heard Mr. Pratik Sen, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, Mr. Niranjan Kumar, the learned counsel for the O.P.No.2 and Mr. Ravi Prakash, the 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. Mr. Niranjan Kumar, the learned counsel suo-motu appears on behalf of the informant-O.P.No.2 and has filed the Vakalatnama.
4. The present petition has been filed for quashing the order dated 20.01.2021 whereby the proclamation order under section 82 Cr.P.C has been issued against the petitioners. The N.B.W order dated 17.03.2020 is also under challenge which was pursuant to his earlier prayer it was allowed by order dated 24.07.2021. He has also challenged the revisional order dated 27.03.2021 passed in Cr.Revision No.6/2021.
5. Mr. Sen, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners by way of referring the order dated 10.10.2019 submits that the case was registered on that date and on 17.03.2020 warrant of arrest has been issued against the petitioners. He submits that there is no service of summons and the case was filed on 10.10.2019 and straight way on 2 17.03.2020 warrant of arrest has been issued which is against the mandate of law. He submits that order dated 20.01.2021 is also bad in law. There is no execution of warrant of arrest and the non-bailable warrant and there is no indication of Form-IV of Cr.P.C which is mandatory in terms of the Cr.P.C. So far as the order dated 17.03.2020 is concerned whereby N.B.W has been issued, the learned counsel for the petitioners submits that there is no satisfaction on evading arrest. The petitioners have also filed A.B.P.No.51/2021. He submits that the petitioners have taken shelter under the law but in the meantime the impugned order dated 20.02.2021 has been passed and that is why anticipatory bail petition was rejected. He submits that there is no satisfaction and the reasons assigned by the court. So far as revisional order dated 27.03.2021 is concerned, he submits that the revision itself is not maintainable against the process order which is interlocutory in nature as under misconception and wrong legal advice it was filed.
6. Mr. Niranjan Kumar, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the informant-O.P.No.2 by way of referring the order dated 20.02.2021 submits that a detailed and reasoned order has been passed. The trial court has considered all the aspect of the matter and thereasfter the impugned order has been passed and there is no illegality in the impugned order.
7. The Court has perused the order dated 17.03.2020. It is crystal clear that the case was instituted on 10.10.2019 and by the next order dated 17.03.2020 warrant of arrest has been issued against the petitioner. There is no issuance of any summon order. The order dated 17.03.2020 which is also not on the satisfaction of the learned court, the Court find force in the argument of learned counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners have moved in A.B.P.No.51/2021 which was rejected and in the meantime the order dated 20.01.2021 was passed. The anticipatory bail petition was rejected on 02.02.2021. The petitioners have already taken recourse under the law, thus, it cannot be said that the petitioners were evading the arrest. The order dated 20.01.2021 whereby the process under section 82 Cr.P.C has been issued is also not in accordance with the rules and only on the petition of the I.O. the said order has been passed. There is no indication of Form-IV Cr.P.C which is mandatory in nature as the same has been dealt with by this Court in paragraph no.23 of its judgment in the case of "Md. Rustum Alam @ Rustam & Ors. v. The State of Jharkhand" reported in 2020 (2) JLJR 712. If in any misconception the Cr.Revision No.6/2021 was filed by 3 the petitioners which was rejected on 27.03.2021 it itself was not maintainable in view of the fact that section 82 Cr.P.C is interlocutory in nature and under section 397 Cr.P.C no interlocutory order is revisable. Thus, the revision order itself was not maintainable. Interlocutory order means, "not that which decides the cause but which only settles the intervening matter relating to the cause. Such an order is made pending the cause and before the final hearing on the merits. It is made to secure some end and purpose necessary and essential to the progress of the case and generally collateral to the issues to be settled by the court in the final judgment. Orders summoning witnesses, adjourning the cases, passing the order for bail, calling for reports, attaching the properties and such other steps in the aid of pending proceedings shall amount to be interlocutory orders, against which no appeal can be preferred". The orders which amounts to be interlocutory orders has been considered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of "Amina Ahmed Dossa & Ors. v. State of Maharashtra" reported in (2001) 2 SCC 675.
8. In the light of the above discussions, the impugned orders are not sustainable in the eye of law and accordingly, the impugned orders dated 20.01.2021, 17.03.2020 and 27.03.2021 are quashed.
9. The matter is remitted back to the court of learned A.C.J.M., Hazaribagh who will proceed afresh strictly in terms of Cr.P.C and the guidelines issued by this Court in the case of "Md. Rustum Alam @ Rustam & Ors. v. State of Jharkhand" (supra).
10. Cr.M.P. No. 1246 of 2021 stands disposed of.
11. I.A., if any, stands disposed of.
( Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J) SI/,