CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS 806 of 2003 on 22 November 2003

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr.M.P. No.83 of 2025

------

Pradeep Kumar Singh, aged about 36 years, Son of Rajdeo Singh, Resident of Village –Barseta, P.O. –Patan, P.S. –Patan, District –Palamau, (Jharkhand) … Petitioner

Versus

…State of Jharkhand

Opposite Party

------

For the Petitioner : Mr. Arwind Prajapati, Advocate : Mr. Nawin Kumar, Advocate : Mr. Nawin Kumar, Advocate For the State : Mr. Subodh Kr. Dubey, Addl. P.P.

------

P R E S E N T

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY

By the Court:-Heard the parties.

2. This Criminal Miscellaneous Petition has been filed invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 with a prayer to quash the order dated 22.11.2003 as well as the order dated 10.02.2004 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Palamau in G.R. Case No. 806 of 2003 corresponding to Patan P.S. Case No. 120 of 2003 by which respectively the proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. and the process under Section 83 Cr.P.C. has been issued inter-alia against the petitioner.

3. Though a prayer has also been made to quash the order dated 18.08.2003 but the learned counsel for the petitioner at the outset submits that the petitioner does not press the said prayer. Hence, the prayer to quash the order dated 18.08.2003 in in G.R. Case No. 806 of 2003 corresponding to Patan P.S. Case No. 120 of 2003 is rejected as not pressed.

4. The brief facts of the case is that on 22.11.2003, the I.O. of the case made a prayer for issuance of the process under Section 82-83 Cr.P.C. on the ground that the accused persons are concealing themselves and evading their arrest but without recording any satisfaction and without fixing any date and time, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Palamau has issued the proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. On 10.02.2004, the I.O. intimated the court that inter-alia the petitioner along with two other co-accused persons are absconding and are removing their property, hence the process under Section 83 Cr.P.C. be issued and the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Palamau ordered for issue of the process under Section 83 Cr.P.C. inter-alia against the petitioner.

5. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the proclamation under Section 82 of Cr.P.C. has been issued vide order dated 22.11.2003 without following the due process of law and without recording the satisfaction that the petitioner is absconding or concealing himself to evade his arrest which is a sine qua non for issuing proclamation under Section 82 of Cr.P.C. that too without fixing any time and place for appearance of the petitioner and without recording any reason for issuing the process under Section 83 Cr.P.C. and without mentioning the description of the property to be attached, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, vide order dated 10.02.2004 has issued the process under Section 83 of Cr.P.C. which is not sustainable in law.

Hence, it is submitted that the orders dated 22.11.2003 and 10.02.2004 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Palamau in in G.R. Case No. 806 of 2003 corresponding to Patan P.S. Case No. 120 of 2003; being not in accordance with law, be quashed and set aside.

6. Learned Addl.P.P. appearing for the State vehemently opposes the prayer for quashing the orders dated 22.11.2003 and 10.02.2004 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Palamau in in G.R. Case No. 806 of 2003 corresponding to Patan P.S. Case No. 120 of 2003 and submits that the very fact that the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate has issued the proclamation under Section 82 of Cr.P.C. and the order of attachment under Section 83 of Cr.P.C. itself shows that there were sufficient materials available in the record for the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate to be satisfied that there is justification for issuance of such proclamation and attachment order. Hence, it is submitted that this criminal miscellaneous petition, being without any merit, be dismissed. 7.Having heard the rival submissions made at the Bar and after carefully going through the materials available in the record, it is pertinent to mention here that by now it is a settled principle of law that the court which issues the proclamation under Section 82 of Cr.P.C. must record its satisfaction that the accused in respect of whom the proclamation under Section 82 of Cr.P.C. is made, is absconding or concealing himself to evade his arrest and in case the court decides to issue proclamation under Section 82 of Cr.P.C. it must mention the time and place for appearance of the petitioner in the order itself by which the proclamation under Section 82 of Cr.P.C. is issued. As already indicated above since the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Palamau has neither recorded its satisfaction that the petitioner is absconding or concealing himself to evade his arrest nor fixed any time or place for appearance of the petitioner, this Court has no hesitation in holding that the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Palamau has committed illegality by issuing the said proclamation under Section 82 of Cr.P.C. without complying the mandatory requirements of law. Hence, the same is not sustainable in law and the continuation of the same will amount to abuse of process of law. Therefore, this is a fit case where the order dated 22.11.2003 be quashed and set aside.

8. Accordingly, the order dated 22.11.2003 passed by the learned passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Palamau in G.R. Case No. 806 of 2003 corresponding to Patan P.S. Case No. 120 of 2003, is quashed and set aside.

9. So far as the order dated 10.02.2004 is concerned, it is a settled principle of law that the court issuing the proclamation under Section 82 of Cr.P.C. may for reasons to be recorded in writing at any time after the issuance of proclamation, order for attachment of any property movable or immovable or both belonging to the proclaimed person. But as already indicated above, in the absence of any reason for issuing the attachment order and without mentioning the description of the property to be attached, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Palamau has committed a grave illegality by issuing the attachment order of the property of the petitioner, who is an accused person of the said G.R. Case No. 806 of 2003 corresponding to Patan P.S. Case No. 120 of 2003. Hence, this Court is of the considered view that the same is also not sustainable in law and continuation of the same will amount to abuse of process of law. Therefore, this is a fit case where the order dated 10.02.2004 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Palamau in G.R. Case No. 806 of 2003 corresponding to Patan P.S. Case No. 120 of 2003, be quashed and set aside.

10. Accordingly, the order dated 10.02.2004 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Palamau in G.R. Case No. 806 of 2003 corresponding to Patan P.S. Case No. 120 of 2003, is also quashed and set aside.

11. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Palamau may pass a fresh order in accordance with law.

12. In the result, this criminal miscellaneous petition stands allowed.

.(Anil Kumar Choudhary, J)

High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi Dated the 23[rd] of April, 2025 AFR/ Sonu-Gunjan/- Dated the 23[rd] of April, 2025 AFR/ Sonu-Gunjan/-