SURYA NARAYAN HANSDA Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for the State through Video Conferencing. The lawyers have no objection with regard to the proceeding which has been held through video conferencing today at 11.00 a.m. They have no complaint with respect to the audio and video clarity and quality.

(2.) In this criminal miscellaneous petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 07.12.2020, passed in Misc. Cr. Application No.543 of 2020 by the Additional Sessions Judge II, Godda whereby the application of the petitioner was dismissed.

(3.) Counsel for the petitioner submits that by filing an application before the Court below, the petitioner had challenged the order dated 28.09.2020, by which processes under Section 82 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was issued. He submits that issuing processes under Section 82 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is absolutely bad and against the provisions of law. He preferred the Misc. Cr. Appl. No.543 of 2020 before the Sessions Judge challenging the said order. The Additional Sessions Judge II, Godda on 07.12.2020 dismissed the said Misc. Cr. Appl. No.543 of 2020 mechanically. He further submits that the order is unreasoned and non speaking. He further submits that the Sessions Court even did not follow the law laid down by this Court in the case of Md. Rustum Alam @ Rustam and Others versus State of Jharkhand as reported in 2020 (2) JLJR 712 and in utter disregard of the order passed by this Court, has passed the impugned order.