Page | 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. M.P. 2686 of 2024 1. Parwati Devi, aged about 58 years, W/o Shankar Rai. 2. Manju Devi, aged about 38 years, W/o Vishnu Rai. 3. Birma Devi, aged about 33 years, W/o Sukhdeo Rai. 4. Rupa Kumar, aged about 21 years, D/o Vishnu Rai. All are residents of Village- Paschami Hirna, P.O.- Rikhiya, P.S.-Rikhiya, District- Deoghar (Jharkhand). ….. Petitioners Versus The State of Jharkhand ….. Opp. Party --------- CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA -------- For the Petitioners : Mr. Swami Nath Prasad, Advocate. For the State : Mrs. Priya Shrestha, Spl.P.P. --------- Order No. 04/Dated: 08th January, 2025 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners as well as learned APP for the State. 2. In the Instant application under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C., the petitioners have sought relief for quashing of the order dated 23.08.2023 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Deoghar in Rikhiya P.S. Case No. 165 of 2021, whereby and whereunder process under Section 82 of the Cr.P.C. has been issued against them. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that no summons or any notice were ever issued against the petitioners and directly the order for issuing non-bailable warrant for arrest was passed by the concerned trial court vide order dated 13.02.2023. The petitioners have not willfully abstained from appearing before the court and Page | 2 participating in the proceedings of the case. Hence, the impugned order is not sustainable and is fit to be set aside. 4. On the other hand, learned APP has submitted that FIR was lodged on 06.09.2021 for the offences under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 307, 302, 504 of the I.P.C. and the present petitioners are named accused persons. It is further submitted that in the course of trial, present petitioners were all along evading their arrest and charge sheet was submitted against some accused persons continuing the investigation against the present petitioners. 5. Since, the petitioners were evading their arrest, hence, on the prayer of I.O. of the case, the warrant of arrest was issued vide order dated 13.02.2023 by the concerned trial Court and after submission of execution report N.B.W. was issued on 13.02.2023 against the present petitioners. The I.O. filed an application under Section 82 of the Cr.P.C. before the concerned Court. 6. It is further submitted that the concerned Court has perused the entire case diary and the steps taken for arrest of the petitioners and incompliance of relevant provisions of Section 82 of Cr.P.C. has passed a reasoned order in compliance of all formalities. Therefore, there is no illegality or infirmity in the impugned order. There is no merits in this petition which is fit to be dismissed. Page | 3 7. I have gone through the impugned order and the material available on record, from perusal of the impugned order it appears that the learned trial court has followed the provisions of Section 82 of Cr.P.C. while passing the impugned order taking into consideration the entire case diary and recording its satisfaction that the petitioners are evading their arrest so that warrant of arrest may not be executed against them and returned by the Investigation Officer. Date was also fixed on 25.10.2023 at about 10:30 AM for appearance of petitioners, after publication of the proclamation. 8. Considering the materials available on record, I do not find any illegality or infirmity in the impugned order calling for any interference. Accordingly, this petition is dismissed. (Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.) Simran/