8. I have gone through the main petition and the impugned orders. In the order dated 18.01.2019, I find that the service report was awaited and only to expedite the case, warrant of arrest has been issued. Similar was the situation when the execution report of warrant of arrest (bailable) was awaited and inspite of that warrant of arrest (non-bailable) has been issued. On 29.07.2019, awaiting service report of non-bailable warrant of arrest, process under Section 82 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was issued that too only to expedite the case. Issuing process under Section 82 of the Code of Criminal Procedure on the ground to expedite the case is not a legal ground and cannot be sustained in the eyes of law. Similarly grounds given to issue warrant of arrests awaiting service/execution reports are also equally bad. This Court in the case of Md. Rustum Alam @ Rustam & Others versus State of Jharkhand in Cr. M.P. No. 2722 of 2019 , by referring to judgments of Hon’ble Supreme Court, has passed a detailed order in respect of issuance of processes under the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The impugned orders dated 18.01.2019, 15.04.2019 and 29.07.2019 passed by the Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Lohardaga in Complaint Case No.79 of 2018 are not in consonance with the said judgment. Thus, the said orders dated 18.01.2019, 15.04.2019 and 29.07.2019 passed by the Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Lohardaga in Complaint Case No.79 of 2018 are, hereby, set aside. The matter is remanded to the Court below to proceed and pass orders in accordance with law.
