Dinesh Singh vs State of Jharkhand

Rakesh Ranjan Prasad, J.—This application has been filed for quashing of the orders dated 05-12-2011, 18-04-2012, and 24-09-2012, passed in connection with Topchanchi P.S. Case No. 34/2009, G.R. No. 996/2009, whereby and whereunder, warrant of arrest, processes u/s 82 as well as 83 Cr.P.C. were ordered to be issued against the petitioner. Mr. Rajan Raj, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that a case was lodged u/s 414 of the Indian Penal Code in which the name of this petitioner was never there as an accused. Subsequently, in course of investigation, name of this petitioner does transpire and only on that basis a requisition was sent by the Investigating Officer before the Court below for issuance of warrant of arrest against him and on such requisition warrant of arrest has been issued vide order dated 05-12-2011. Subsequently, without there being any report relating to execution of the warrant of arrest, process was ordered to be issued u/s 82, Cr.P.C. and similarly, without there being any report relating to execution of the process u/s 82, Cr.P.C., an order was passed on 24-09-2012, whereby process under. Section 83, Cr.P.C. has been ordered to be issued and, thereby, all the orders are fit to be set aside.

Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner seems to have been made accused as he had given the land in lease to one of the co-accused Kaushal Kumar Srivastava, who had stored coal over that piece of land and that coal was taken to be illegal. When said Kaushal Kumar Srivastava filed an application before this Court for release of coal, that was released in his favour vide order dated 04-05-2010, passed in Cr. Revision No. 795 of 2009, and this fact itself makes clear that the petitioner has nothing to do with the said coal. Still, warrant of arrest has been issued against him and, thereafter, processes under Sections 82 & 83 Cr.P.C. have been issued.

Having heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and on perusal of the records, I do find that the warrant of arrest has been ordered to be issued when a requisition was made by the I.O. stating therein that the name of this petitioner got transpired during investigation and in such event, if the warrant of arrest has been issued, I do not find any illegality in the order issuing warrant of arrest.

So far as issuance of processes under Sections 82 & 83 Cr.P.C. is concerned, those orders do not seem to have been passed in accordance with law as before issuance of process u/s 82, Cr.P.C., there was no report relating to the execution of the warrant of arrest and similarly, the Court, without having any report relating to execution of the process u/s 82, has passed an order for issuance of process u/s 83, Cr.P.C. and, thereby, both the orders dated 18-04-2012 and 24-09-2012, are, hereby, set aside.

The petitioner is hereby directed to surrender before the Court below within two weeks from today. If the petitioner surrenders and prays for bail, the same be disposed of after taking into consideration with the submissions relating to the release of coal in favour of said Kaushal Kumar Srivastava.

Accordingly, this application stands disposed of. Let this order be communicated through FAX at the cost of the petitioner.