Dipak Kumar Manjhi Alias Dipak Manjhi Vs the State of Jharkhand

(2026:JHHC:3613)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr.M.P. No. 3667 of 2025

Dipak Kumar Manjhi @ Dipak Manjhi, aged about 58 years, son of Navdip Manjhi, resident of Govindpur, P.O.-Govindpur, P.S.Ranishwar, Dist.-Dumka

¶4

.... Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

The State of Jharkhand

¶7

Mukesh Kumar Yadav, aged about 43 years, s/o late Ayodha Prasad Yadav, resident of Village- Sundarpur, Maheshpur, P.O. & P.S.-Maheshpur, Dist.-Pakur, Jharkhand

¶8

Opp. Parties

¶9

P R E S E N T

¶10

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY

¶11

For the Petitioner : Mr. Pran Pranay, Advocate : Ms. Kehkashan Afsheen, Advocate For the State : Mr. V.K. Vashistha, Spl. P.P. For O.P. No.2 : Mr. Gautam Kumar, Advocate : Ms. Savita Kumari, Advocate

¶12

By the Court:-

¶13

I.A. No.1941 of 2026

¶14

Heard the parties.

¶15

This interlocutory application has been filed with the prayer for early hearing of this criminal miscellaneous petition.

¶16

Since, hearing of this criminal miscellaneous petition is taken up today, hence, this interlocutory application is disposed of being infructuous.

¶17

(Anil Kumar Choudhary, J . )

¶18

Cr.M.P. No.3667 of 2025

¶19

1

¶20

(2026:JHHC:3613)

¶21

Cr.M.P. No. 3667 of 2025

¶22

Heard the parties.

¶23

This criminal miscellaneous petition has been filed invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 528 of B.N.S.S., 2023 with twin prayers i.e. to quash the orders dated 08.02.2018 and 02.05.2018 passed by the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Pakur in connection with Complaint Case No. 72 of 2017 whereby and where under, respectively proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. and the attachment order of property of the petitioner under Section 83 Cr.P.C. have been ordered to be issued against the petitioner.

¶24

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner does not want to press the prayer to quash the order dated 02.05.2018 as no property of the petitioner has been attached as yet and confines the prayer only to quash the order dated 08.02.2018.

¶25

Accordingly, the prayer to quash the order dated 02.05.2018 is rejected as not pressed.

¶26

So far as the prayer to quash the order dated 08.02.2018 is concerned, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that proclamation under Section 82 of Cr.P.C. has been issued without following the due process of law and without recording the satisfaction that the petitioner is absconding or concealing himself to evade his arrest that too without fixing any time and place for appearance of the accused person concern, who is the petitioner herein, therefore, the same is not sustainable in law. Hence, it is submitted that the order dated 08.02.2018 passed by the learned Sub-

¶27

Cr.M.P. No.3667 of 2025

¶28

2

¶29

(2026:JHHC:3613)

¶30

Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Pakur in connection with Complaint Case No. 72 of 2017 be quashed and set aside.

¶31

Learned Special Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 on the other hand opposes the prayer and submits that the very fact that the learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Pakur has issued the proclamation under Section 82 of Cr.P.C. itself shows that there were materials available in the record for the learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Pakur to be satisfied that there is justification for issuance of such proclamation. Hence, it is submitted that this criminal miscellaneous petition being without any merit be dismissed.

¶32

Having heard the submissions made at the Bar and after going through the materials in the record, it is pertinent to mention here that by now it is a settled principle of law that the court which issues the proclamation under Section 82 of Cr.P.C. must record its satisfaction that the accused in respect of whom the proclamation under Section 82 of Cr.P.C. is made, is absconding or concealing himself to evade his arrest and in case the court decides to issue proclamation under Section 82 of Cr.P.C., it must mention the time and place for appearance of the accused person concerned, in the order itself by which the proclamation under Section 82 of Cr.P.C. is issued.

¶33

Now coming to the facts of the case, as already indicated above since the learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Pakur in the impugned order dated 08.02.2018 has neither recorded its satisfaction that the petitioner is absconding or concealing himself to evade his arrest nor fixed any time or place for appearance of the

¶34

Cr.M.P. No.3667 of 2025

¶35

3

¶36

(2026:JHHC:3613)

¶37

petitioner who is the accused person of this case, this Court has no hesitation in holding that the continuation of the order dated 08.02.2018 so far as it relates to the petitioner of this case, is not sustainable in law and the same will amount to abuse of process of law. Therefore, this is a fit case where the order dated 08.02.2018 passed by the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Pakur in connection with Complaint Case No. 72 of 2017 be quashed and set aside qua the petitioner.

¶38

Accordingly, the order dated 08.02.2018 passed by the learned SubDivisional Judicial Magistrate, Pakur in connection with Complaint Case No. 72 of 2017, is quashed and set aside qua the petitioner.

¶39