Seema Dash and anr Vs. State of Jharkhand - Court Judgment

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND, RANCHI Cr. M. P. No. 1171 o”

1. Seema Dash 2. Rajkumari Dash ..... Petitioner(s) with Cr. M. P. No.1308 of 2013 Rajendra Mohapatra ..... Petitioner(s) Versus The State of Jharkhand …. Opp. Party(s) CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE R. R. PRASAD For the Petitioner(s) : M/s Akhilesh Kumar, Rakesh Kumar, Advocate. For the State : A.P.P. ----- 02 /10.09.2013. Since both the cases arising out of same impugned order, both the applications are being disposed of, by the common order. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. The order dated 19.03.2012 passed in Kiriburu P.S. Case No.14 of 2011 [G.R. No.329 of 2011] is being sought to be quashed on the ground that the order, under which warrant of arrest has been ordered to be issued, never seems to have been passed in consonance with the provisions as contained in Section 73 Cr.P.C. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that simply on the requisition disclosing therein that a prima facie, case is made out against the petitioners for commission of the offence under Sections 366, 376, 120B /34 of the Indian Penal Code, warrant of arrest was sought to be issued and the court, on the said requisition, passed an order for issuance of warrant of arrest and as such, it is not, in consonance with the, provisions as contained in Section 73 Cr.P.C. In the context of the submission advanced on behalf of the petitioners, the provision as contained in Section 73 Cr.P.C. needs to be taken notice of, which reads as follows :-

“73. Warrant may be directed to any person.- (1) The Chief Judicial Magistrate or a Magistrate of the first class may direct a warrant to any person within his local jurisdiction for the arrest of any escaped convict, proclaimed offender or of any person who is accused of a non-bailable offence, and is evading arrest. (2) Such person shall acknowledge in writing the receipt fo the warrant, and shall execute it if the person for whose arrest it was issued, is in, or enters on, any land or other property under his charge. (3) When the person against whom such warrant is issued is arrested, he shall be made over with the warrant to the nearest police officer, who shall cause him to be taken before a Magistrate having jurisdiction in the case, unless security is taken under Section 71. From bare perusal of the section, it is manifest that it confers a power upon the Magistrate to issue warrant for arrest of three classes of persons, namely, (i) escaped convict (ii) a proclaimed offender and (iii) a person who is accused of a non-bailable offence and is evading arrest. But from perusal of the requisition submitted by the Investigating Officer for issuance of warrant of arrest which was produced at the time of hearing and kept on record, it does appear that warrant of arrests have never been sought to be issued on any of the grounds mentioned under Section 73 of Cr.P.C. rather it has simply been stated that prima facie, case is there against the petitioner. On such requisition, warrant of arrests have been ordered to be issued and as such, it never appears to be in consonance with the provisions as contained in Section 73 of Cr.P.C. Accordingly, order dated 19.03.2012 is hereby, quashed. Thus, these applications stand allowed. (R. R. Prasad, J.) Sandeep/