JHARKHAND HIGH COURT ISSUES ORDER ON RAVINDRA KESHRI V/S THE STATE OF JHARKHAND

RANCHI, India, Jan. 8 -- Jharkhand High Court issued the following order on Dec. 8:

1. Heard the parties.

2. This criminal miscellaneous petition has been filed invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 528 of the B.N.S.S., 2023 with the prayer to quash the order dated 05.09.2024 by which written proclamation under Section 82 of the Cr.P.C. has been issued against the petitioner by the learned S.D.J.M., Khunti in connection with Murhu P.S. Case No. 18 of 2020 corresponding to G.R. Case No. 249 of 2024(A).

3. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that pursuant to registration of the F.I.R. of the said case, notice under Section 41A of the Cr.P.C. was sent to the petitioner on 13.01.2024. The petitioner replied to the notice under Section 41A of the Cr.P.C. which was received by the police on 17.02.2024. It is then submitted that charge sheet was submitted against the co-accused -S.C. Chaitram on 26.04.2024, keeping investigation pending against the petitioner and the other co-accused persons. On 19.06.2024, the I.O. of the case prayed for issuance of warrant of arrest against the petitioner and the warrant of arrest was issued against the petitioner and another co-accused person. On 05.09.2024, the I.O. of the case prayed for issuance of the process under Section 82 of the Cr.P.C. and the learned S.D.J.M., Khunti after recording its satisfaction based on wrong paragraphs of the case diary, passed direction for issuance of proclamation under Section 82 of the Cr.P.C. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the proclamation under Section 82 of the Cr.P.C. was issued after failing to appreciate the fact that the petitioner has replied to the notice under Section 41A Cr.P.C. It is next submitted that it has erroneously been mentioned in the order dated 05.09.2024, passed in Murhu P.S. Case No. 18 of 2020 corresponding to G.R. Case No. 249 of 2024A that in para -33, 38, 47 & 52 of the case diary, it has been mentioned that raid was conducted in the house of the petitioner, as the said paragraphs of the case diary do not reflect that raid was ever conducted in the house of the petitioner. It is next submitted that the petitioner is completely bed ridden. Hence, it is submitted that the prayer as prayed for by the petitioner in this criminal miscellaneous petition be allowed.

4. The learned Addl. P.P. on the other hand vehemently opposes the prayer as prayed for by the petitioner in this criminal miscellaneous petition and submits that if at all the petitioner is a law abiding person, since the proclamation under Section 82 of the Cr.P.C. has already been made requiring him to appear before the learned S.D.J.M., Khunti, he must put forth his grievances before the learned S.D.J.M., Khunti. It is next submitted that the case diary which has been referred in the impugned order is the supplementary case diary, which is the case diary in respect of this case as this case has been split up from the main G.R. Case No. 249 of 2024 and renumbered as G.R. Case No. 249 of 2024A; whereas the paragraphs referred by the learned counsel of the petitioner are of the original case diary.

*Rest of the document can be viewed at: (https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/ecourtindiaHC/cases/display_pdf.php?filename=bzPoyUlszYLCUcCpirIpqPoPBJhwqXH3XLbpCjvIH2f1Mjuk23UniJLVnymdM8oE&caseno=Cr.M.P./304/2025&cCode=1&cino=JHHC010408242024&state_code=7&appFlag=)

Disclaimer: Curated by HT Syndication.