MANOJ SALUJA @ PINTU Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) LEARNED counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that all the defects pointed out of the Office, have been removed. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and learned counsel appearing for the State. This application has been filed for quashing of the order dated 17.10.2012 passed by Sri P.K. Sharma, learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Bokaro, in connection with Bokaro Sector-IV P.S. Case No.56 of 2012, G.R. No.697 of 2012 registered under Sections 498 A, 304B/34 of the Indian Penal Code, whereby and whereunder, an order has been passed for issuance of process under Sections 82 Cr.P.C. That apart prayer has also been made for quashing of the entire proceeding. It was submitted that though the prayer has not been made in so many words, for quashing of the order dated 22.01.2013, by which, process has been issued under Section 83 Cr.P.C., but from perusal of para-1, it would appear that the petitioners have indirectly made such prayer.

(2.) LEARNED counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that after the process was issued under Section 82 Cr. P.C., an application was filed on behalf of the petitioners before the court below on 22.01.2013, informing therein that the petitioner no.2 has suffered serious fracture, which has rendered the petitioner incapacitated and, thereby, prayer was made not to issue any process under Section 83 Cr.P.C., but the court below, ignoring the said fact, passed an order on 22.01.2013, whereby process has been ordered to be issued under Section 83 Cr.P.C., which is quite illegal, as the purpose for issuance of the processes either under Sections 82 or 83 Cr. P.C. is to secure attendance of the accused and when an application is being filed on behalf of the accused that one of the accused has sustained fracture as a result of which, he has become incapacitated, the court should not have issued process under Section 83 Cr. P.C. In the facts and circumstances of the case, I do find substance in the submission advanced on behalf of these petitioners. From the documents annexed with this application, it does appear that when the petitioner no.2 did sustain fracture in the month of December, 2012 for which, he is undergoing treatment and even the Doctor at Delhi has advised him to have have operation, it would have been difficult on his part as well as on the part of the petitioner no.1, who is rendering assistance to him in doing daily routine, to put appearance. More so, information to this respect had been given on behalf of the petitioners to the court below, but the court did not take into account this aspect of the matter and passed order on 22.01.2013 whereby process has been issued under Section 83 Cr.P.C. which, in the facts and circumstances, seems to be illegal.