The High Court quashed a bailable warrant issued against the petitioner because the underlying summons had not been served. The Court held that issuing warrants without service reports is impermissible and directed the Magistrate to pass fresh orders in accordance with law.
Quashing of the bailable warrant of arrest dated 14.02.2018.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1 Cr.M.P. No.1063 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr.M.P. No. 1063 of 2022
Birbal Pandit, aged about 45 years, son of Late Parmeshwar Pandit, Resident of Village –Malhara, Post Office –Sarouni Bazar, Police Station – Godda (Muffasil), District –Godda.
.... Petitioner
Versus
The State of Jharkhand
…. Opp. Party
P R E S E N T
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY
For the Petitioner For the State
: Mr. Manoj Kr. Sah, Advocate
: Mr. Abhay Kr. Tiwari, Addl.P.P.
By the Court:-
invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
with a prayer to quash the entire criminal proceeding including the order dated 14.02.2018, passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Godda whereby and where under the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Godda issued bailable warrant of arrest against the petitioner in connection with Godda (M) P.S. Case No. 51 of 2002, corresponding to G.R. Case No. 167 of 2002.
2
Cr.M.P. No.1063 of 2022
G.R. Case No. 167 of 2002. After investigation of the case, the charge sheet was submitted against the petitioner for having committed the offences punishable under Section 147/148/149/ 341/323/324/325/307 of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 25(1-b)A/35 of the Arms Act; while keeping the investigation pending in respect of the offences punishable under Section 3/4 of the Explosive Substances Act. The case was committed to the court of sessions by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate vide his order dated 10.01.2003 in G.R. Case No. 167 of 2002. The learned Sessions Judge framed charges against the petitioner for having committed the offences punishable under Section 147/307 of the Indian Penal Code, under Section 5 of the Explosive Substances Act and under Section 25(a) of the Arms Act in Sessions Case No. 6 of 2003. The learned Sessions Judge vide its Judgment dated 01.07.2003 in Sessions Case No. 6 of 2003 acquitted the petitioner and the co-accused persons. It appears that on 16.11.2010, in the said G.R. Case No. 167 of 2002, supplementary charge sheet was submitted against the petitioner for having committed offences punishable under Section 3/4 of the Explosive Substances Act in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Godda. The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Godda, transferred the case to the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate as the earlier charge sheet was transferred to the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Godda for commitment to the Court of Sessions. It appears that the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate oblivious of the fact that the case has already been
3
Cr.M.P. No.1063 of 2022
committed to the court of sessions, vide order dated 24.03.2011 issued summons inter-alia to the petitioner who was cited as an accused person in the supplementary charge sheet and subsequently vide order dated 14.02.2018 issued bailable warrant without service report of the summon issued against the petitioner.
4
Cr.M.P. No.1063 of 2022
2003 in the Sessions Trial arising out of the selfsame Godda (M) P.S. Case No. 51 of 2002 corresponding to G.R. Case No. 167 of 2002, hence in case, the order dated 14.02.2018 is quashed, the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate be directed to pass a fresh order keeping in view the facts of the case.
Having heard the submissions made at the Bar and after going through the materials in the record, it is pertinent to mention here that it is a settled principle of law that when the Court issues a summon to an accused person, it must ensure that the summon is served upon the accused person and without receipt of the service report of the summons, in a mechanical manner, the warrant of arrest ought not to be issued.
5 Cr.M.P. No.1063 of 2022
Godda (M) P.S. Case No. 51 of 2002, corresponding to G.R. Case No. 167 of 2002 is quashed and set aside.
(Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.)
High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi Dated the 10th January, 2024 AFR/Sonu-Gunjan/-
1 issue framed by the court
Whether a bailable warrant of arrest can be issued mechanically without a service report of the summons?
3 provisions across 3 enactments
Birbal Pandit
The State of Jharkhand
Anil Kumar Choudhary
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
