Impugned orders passed without following the proper procedure of law were set aside – Jharkhand high court

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr.M.P. No. 30621 Vijay Mundu S o John Mundu aged about 54 years R o H.No. 147 Near Over Bridge Dibadih Shantipur Dibadhi P.O. Doranda P.S. Argora Dist Ranchi Jharkhand 834002 … Petitioner State of Jharkhand … Opposite Party CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI Versus For the Petitioner For the Opposite Party State Mr. Shubhashis Rasik Soren Advocate Mr. Bhola Nath Ojha A.P.P. Heard Mr. Shubhashis Rasik Soren learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Bhola Nath Ojha learned A.P.P. for the State. This petition has been taken 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 The defects are ignored The Court is not inclined to interfere with the FIR being Murhu P.S Case No.90 of 2014 corresponding to G.R. Case No.535 of 2014 dated Learned counsel for the petitioner confines his prayer to the orders dated 24.06.2015 28.03.2016 19.07.2017 05.05.2018 16.11.2018 and 18.02.2019 whereby bailable warrant non bailable warrant twice processes under Sections 82 and 83 Cr.P.C. and permanent warrant respectively have been issued against the petitioner in connection with Murhu P.S. Case No.914 corresponding to G.R. Case No.5314 pending in the court of the learned SDJM Khunti. 2 Mr. Soren learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the case is arising out of a motor accident in which the petitioner is also injured. He further submits that the petitioner has appeared in the court and obtained bail and thereafter the petitioner has not received any notice and in a mechanical way the impugned orders have been passed. He also submits that the impugned orders themselves suggest that the execution report was not there and in spite of that bailable warrant twice non bailable warrant processes under Sections 82 and 83 Cr.P.C. and permanent warrant have Mr. Ojha learned A.P.P. for the State submits that there is no illegality been issued against the petitioner. in the impugned orders. The Court has perused the order dated 25.05.2015 which suggests that the service report of the issued summons has not been received and by the next order dated 24.06.2015 bailable warrant has been issued against the petitioner. The order dated 22.01.2016 suggests that execution report of bailable warrant has not been received and in spite of that non bailable warrant has been issued against the petitioner vide order dated 28.03.2016 and vide order dated 19.07.2017 again non bailable warrant has been issued against the petitioner. The process under Section 82 Cr.P.C. has been issued against the petitioner vide order dated 05.05.2018. In the said order it has been recorded that the service report of the issued warrant has not been received and in spite of that the order dated 05.05.2018 has been passed. The said order has not been passed in accordance with law. There is no satisfaction recorded in terms of the Cr.P.C. In Form 4 of Cr.P.C statutory provision has not been complied with 3 as held by this Court in the case of Md. Rustum Alam @ Rustam and Others v. The State of Jharkhand reported in 2020JLJR 712. The subsequent orders dated 16.11.2018 and 18.02.2019 shall also not survive in view of illegality in the order dated 05.05.2018. Accordingly the impugned orders dated 24.06.2015 28.03.2016 19.07.2017 05.05.2018 16.11.2018 and 18.02.2019 passed in connection with Murhu P.S. Case No.914 corresponding to G.R. Case No.5314 pending in the court of the learned SDJM Khunti are hereby set aside. The matter is remitted back to the concerned court to proceed afresh in accordance with law Accordingly this petition stands allowed and disposed of Ajay (Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi J

Summary: Impugned orders passed without following the proper procedure of law were set aside – Jharkhand high court A criminal petition filed against the impugned orders where bailable warrant, non-bailable warrant twice, processes under Sections 82 and 83 Cr.P.C. and permanent warrant have been issued against the petitioner. the present application is filed on the ground that the passed orders were not issued in accordance with the law. The petition was heard and allowed by a single judge bench of HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI in the case of Vijay Mundu versus the state of Jharkhand (Cr.M.P. No. 3060 of 2021) The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submits that the case is of a motor accident where the petitioner was also injured and the petitioner has obtained the bail from the court and after which they did not receive any notices about the impugned orders passed without a proper procedure and in a mechanical way. the counsel further submits that the impugned orders were passed without any execution report and despite the report, bailable warrant, twice non-bailable warrant, processes under Sections 82 and 83 Cr.P.C. and permanent warrant have been issued against the petitioner. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the state submits that there is no illegality in the impugned orders. The court finds that the passed orders suggest that the service report of the issued summons has not been given and a bailable warrant has been issued against the petitioner. the other order also suggests some default in it of not presenting the execution report and from the order passed it is undoubtedly clear that the orders were passed not in accordance with law and there is no satisfaction recorded in terms of the Cr.P.C. and statutory provisions have not been followed. The court relies on the case of Md. Rustum Alam @ Rustam and others v. The State of Jharkhand, reported in 2020 (2) JLJR 712, and accordingly the impugned order passed in connection with Murhu P.S. Case No.90 of 2014 corresponding to G.R. Case No.535 of 2014, was set aside and the matter was remitted back to the concerned court to issue an order in accordance with the law.