ANIL KUMAR SHARMA Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. Manoj Tandon, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Shiv Kumar Sharma, learned A.P.P. for the State.

(2.) In this application, the petitioner has prayed for quashing of the entire criminal proceedings in connection with Sonua P.S. Case No. 31 of 2003 corresponding to G.R. No. 143 of 2003 including the order dtd. 3/4/2007 by virtue of which cognizance has been taken against the petitioner for the offences punishable under sec. 467, 368, 471, 420, 379, 411, 34 of the Indian Penal Code and sec. 33 of the Indian Forest Act. Further challenge has been made to the orders dtd. 26/7/2007 and 11/10/2007 passed by the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Porahat at Chaibasa, whereby and where under non-bailable warrant of arrest and proclamation under sec. 82 Cr.P.C., 1973 has been ordered to be issued.

(3.) At the outset it has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that he is confining his argument for the present only with respect to the order dtd. 11/10/2007 by virtue of which coercive steps have been ordered to be taken against the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was never aware of the issuance of non-bailable warrant of arrest and proclamation under sec. 82 Cr.P.C., 1973 since in the charge-sheet the innocence of the petitioner was detected by the Investigating Officer and final form was submitted in his favour. It has been submitted that the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Porhat at Chaibasa, however disagreed with the finding of the Investigating Officer and take cognisance against the petitioner on 3/4/2007 and has also summoned the petitioner to face trial. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that recently when the Police had approached the petitioner in the month of December, 2016 then the petitioner come to know that he is being prosecuted in the case and coercive steps have been ordered to be taken against him. It has further been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the impugned order dtd. 11/10/2007 also does not justify issuance of proclamation under sec. 82 Cr.P.C., 1973 as no reasons has been assigned in the same.