2025:JHHC:22282 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND, RANCHI Cr.M.P. No. 3530 of 2021 ---- Dr. Sarat Chandra Das, aged about 71 years, son of late Chandra Mohan Das, resident of D/23, Shiv Kumar Asthali, NH-33, Mango, Jamshedpur, P.O.-Paradih, P.S. Mango, District East Singhbhum … Petitioner(s) -- Versus -- The State of Jharkhand, through Vigilance(ACB)… Opposite Party(s) ---- CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI --- For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. Birendra Kumar, Advocate For the Opposite Party(s) : Mr. Satish Prasad, Advocate ---- 7/07.08.2025 The prayer in this petition has been made for quashing of the order dated 26.08.2020 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge-II Cum Special Judge (Vigilance, Cyber Cases, Electricity Act), Dhanbad in connection with Spl. (Vigilance) Case No.09/2016, Dhanbad (Vigilance) P.S.Case No.09/2016, registered for the offence under Sections 420, 467, 478, 471, 409, 120B and 109 of the IPC, Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(D) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 wherein the process under Section 82 Cr.P.C has been issued against the petitioner. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that till date the charge sheet has not been submitted in the said criminal case. He submits that the allegations are made that in spite of purchase of C.T. Scan Machine, the same was not installed in the Patliputra Medical College, Dhanbad. He submits that the departmental proceeding has also been initiated against the petitioner in which the petitioner has been exonerated. He further submits that the petitioner has not received any summons, bailable warrant and the NBW and in spite of that, the learned court has been pleased to issue the process under Section 82 Cr.P.C. 3. Learned counsel for the respondent State has opposed the prayer and submits that the petitioner was not appearing before the learned court and in the compelling situation, the learned court has passed the said order. 4. Looking to the impugned order dated 26.08.2020, it transpires that the learned court has been pleased to issue the process under Section 82 Cr.P.C wherein even the date, time and place of appearance has not been disclosed, which is one of the parameter of passing such order under Section 82 Cr.P.C and further the satisfaction of the learned court is not recorded in the said order which are also one of the criteria of passing such order for proclamation under Section 82 of the Cr.P.C and in light of that, the impugned order dated 26.08.2020, is hereby, quashed. 5. The matter is remitted back to the learned court concerned to proceed further in accordance with law. 6. This petition is disposed of. ( Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.) SI/