Koderma v. The State of Jharkhand
Case Details
( 2025:JHHC:38705 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr.M.P. No.461 of 2024 ------ Kishore Sharma, son of Narayan Rana @ Narayan Sharma, aged about 38 years, resident of village-Buchitand, Ward No.01, P.O.- Bagro, P.S.-Koderma and District-Koderma. Versus The State of Jharkhand … Opposite Party … Petitioner For the Petitioner For the State ------ : Mr. Diwakar Jha, Advocate : Mr. Praful Jojo, Addl. P.P. ------ P R E S E N T
Legal Reasoning
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 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure with the prayer to quash the orders dated 21.01.2012, 10.07.2012, 12.03.2013, 11.07.2013 and 25.06.2014 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Koderma in Complaint Case No.260 of 2010. 3. The brief fact of the case is that consequent upon the petitioner- who is the accused person of the case concerned, involving the offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act and under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code not appearing before the learned trial court; the learned trial court vide orders dated 21.01.2012 and 10.07.2012 has twice issued the non-bailable warrant of arrest against the petitioner, without recording its satisfaction that the petitioner is 1 Cr. M.P. No.461 of 2024 ( 2025:JHHC:38705 ) evading his arrest and vide order dated 12.03.2013 issued proclamation under Section 82 of Cr.P.C. against the petitioner without recording any satisfaction that the petitioner is absconding or concealing himself to evade his arrest and without fixing the time and place for appearance of the petitioner and without receipt of the execution report of the non- bailable warrant of arrest issued against him. Further, vide order dated 10.07.2013/ 11.07.2013, without the report of the written proclamation under Section 82 of Cr.P.C., the learned Judicial Magistrate, Koderma has directed for issuance of process for attachment of property under Section 83 of Cr.P.C. against the petitioner and lastly vide order dated 25.06.2014, the learned Judicial Magistrate, Koderma has issued permanent warrant of arrest against the petitioner and declared him absconder. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the said orders dated 21.01.2012 and 10.07.2012 by which non-bailable warrant of arrest has been issued against the petitioner is not in accordance with law and the learned Judicial Magistrate, Koderma has failed to record any satisfaction that the petitioner is evading his arrest. It is next submitted that the order dated 12.03.2013 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Koderma in Complaint Case No.260 of 2010 is not sustainable in law because the same has been issued without following the due process of law and without recording the satisfaction that the petitioner is absconding or concealing himself to evade his arrest and that too without fixing any time and place for appearance of the 2 Cr. M.P. No.461 of 2024 ( 2025:JHHC:38705 ) petitioner. Further, the said order was passed in absence of the execution report of the non-bailable warrant of arrest issued against the petitioner. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner next submits that similarly, the order dated 10.07.2013/11.07.2013 is also not sustainable in law as the same has been passed without the report showing that the proclamation under Section 82 of Cr.P.C. has been made. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that so far as the order dated 25.06.2014 is concerned, though it is the condition precedent for declaring a person absconder and issuing permanent warrant of arrest is that, it must be proved before the court concerned, that the accused has absconded and there is no immediate prospect of arresting him but in this case, there being no material in the record to suggest that there is no immediate prospect for arresting the petitioner, the learned Judicial Magistrate committed a grave illegality in declaring him absconder and issued permanent warrant of arrest against him, hence, the same is also not sustainable in law and is liable to quashed and set aside. 7. Learned Addl.P.P. appearing for the State vehemently opposes the prayer for quashing the orders dated 21.01.2012, 10.07.2012, 12.03.2013, 11.07.2013 and 25.06.2014 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Koderma in Complaint Case No.260 of 2010 and submits that the very fact that the learned Judicial Magistrate has issued the non-bailable warrant of arrest, proclamation under Section 82 of Cr.P.C. and the order of attachment under Section 83 of Cr.P.C. and the order 3 Cr. M.P. No.461 of 2024 ( 2025:JHHC:38705 ) declaring inter-alia the petitioner to be an absconder itself shows that there were materials available in the record for the learned Judicial Magistrate to be satisfied that there is justification for issuance of such the non-bailable warrant of arrest, proclamation, passing order for attachment and declaring the petitioner who is the accused person of the case concerned to be an absconder. Hence, it is submitted that this criminal miscellaneous petition being without any merit, be dismissed. 8. 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 so far as the orders dated 21.01.2012 and 10.07.2012 respectively passed in the said complaint case no.260 of 2010 is concerned, Section 73 of the Cr.P.C. inter alia vested the power upon the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate or the Magistrate of First Class to direct a warrant to any person within its jurisdiction who is accused of a non-bailable offence and is evading arrest, but in the orders dated 21.01.2012 and 10.07.2012, nowhere any satisfaction has been recorded by the learned Magistrate to the effect that the petitioner is evading his arrest. Since the non-bailable warrant of arrest has been issued against the petitioner vide the said two orders without recording such satisfaction that the petitioner is evading his arrest, hence, this Court is of the considered view that the orders dated 21.01.2012 and 10.07.2012 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Koderma in Complaint Case No.260 of 2010 having been passed in without following the due 4 Cr. M.P. No.461 of 2024 ( 2025:JHHC:38705 ) process of law, is not sustainable in law, accordingly the same are quashed and set aside. 9. So far as the order dated 12.03.2013 is concerned, 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 Judicial Magistrate, Koderma 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 Judicial Magistrate, Koderma 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 and this is a fit case where the order dated 12.03.2013 be quashed and set aside. Accordingly, the order dated 12.03.2013 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Koderma in Complaint Case No.260 of 2010, is quashed and set aside. 5 Cr. M.P. No.461 of 2024 ( 2025:JHHC:38705 ) 10. So far as the order dated 10.07.2013/11.07.2013 is concerned, it is a settled principle of law that the court issuing proclamation under Section 82 of Cr.P.C. may for reasons to be recorded in writing, at any time after the issue of proclamation, may order for attachment of any property movable or immovable or both belonging to the proclaimed person. Now, in the absence of any material in the record to suggest that the proclamation under Section 82 of Cr.P.C. was in fact made in accordance with law, certainly the learned Judicial Magistrate, Koderma committed illegality by passing the order of attachment of property of the petitioner without mentioning the description of the property to be attached and without recording any reason in writing about the need for passing such order of attachment. Hence, under such circumstances, this Court has no hesitation in holding that the order dated 10.07.2013/11.07.2013 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Koderma in Complaint Case No.260 of 2010 is also not in accordance with law and continuation of the same will amount to abuse of process of law and this is a fit case where the order dated 10.07.2013/11.07.2013 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Koderma in Complaint Case No.260 of 2010, is quashed and set aside. 11. So far as the order dated 25.06.2014 is concerned, it is a settled principle of law that before exercising the power under Section 299 of Cr.P.C., it is necessary that all conditions prescribed must be strictly complied with namely the court must be satisfied that the accused has absconded or that there is no immediate prospect of arresting him, as 6 Cr. M.P. No.461 of 2024 ( 2025:JHHC:38705 ) has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Nirmal Singh vs. State of Haryana, reported in (2000) 4 SCC 41. 12. Now coming to the facts of the case, the perusal of the record reveals that there is absolutely no material in the record to suggest that the petitioner has absconded or that there is no immediate prospect of arresting him. In the absence of that, certainly the learned Judicial Magistrate, Koderma has committed a grave illegality by declaring the petitioner to be an absconder and issuing permanent warrant of arrest. Hence, this Court is of the considered view that the order dated 25.06.2014 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Koderma in connection with Complaint Case No. 260 of 2010 being not sustainable in law is quashed and set aside. 13. Accordingly, the orders dated 21.01.2012, 10.07.2012, 12.03.2013, 11.07.2013 and 25.06.2014 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Koderma in Complaint Case No.260 of 2010, is quashed and set aside. 14. The learned Judicial Magistrate, Koderma or its successor Court may pass a fresh order in accordance with law. 15.
Decision
In the result, this Cr.M.P. stands allowed. (Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi Dated the 23rd of December, 2025 AFR/ Abhiraj Uploaded on 03/01/2026 7 Cr. M.P. No.461 of 2024