IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr.M.P. No. 162 of 2025 1. Tarif Ansari @ Sahid Ansari @ Chotu@ Sahid @ Chotu, age of 33 years, S/o Aftab Ansari, R/o Kokdoro, P.O. and P.S. – Pithoriya, District – Ranchi. 2. Sujauddin Ansari @ Sajjauddin Asnari @ Sajjauddin, age of 50 years, S/o Late Dukhan @ Dukhu @ Shekh Dukhu @ Lt. Dukhu Ansari, R/o Kokdoro, P.O. and P.S. – Pithoriya, District – Ranchi. ….. Petitioners Versus The State of Jharkhand ….. Opp. Party --------- CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA -------- For the Petitioners : Mr. Birendra Burman, Advocate. For the State : Mr. Sunil Kumar Dubey, A.P.P. For the Informant : Mr. Ashish Verma, Advocate. --------- Order No. 02/Dated: 29th January, 2025 1. The present criminal miscellaneous petition has been filed for quashing the order dated 19.12.2024 passed by learned J.M.-VI, Ranchi, in connection with Pithoriya P.S. Case No. 46 of 2024, registered for the offence under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 34 of the I.P.C., whereby and whereunder proclamation under Section 82 of the Cr.P.C. has been issued against the petitioners. 2. At the outset, learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that he does not want to press the present criminal miscellaneous petition with respect to petitioner no. 2 namely, Sujauddin Ansari, as he has been arrested during the pendency of this petition. 3. Considering the same, this criminal miscellaneous petition is dismissed as not pressed with respect to petitioner no. 2 is concerned. 4. So far petitioner no. 1 namely, Tarif Ansari is concerned, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the impugned order is an illegal one as the proclamation has been ordered without fixing any time or place for the appearance of the petitioner and further no notice under Section 41A of the Cr.P.C. was ever issued to the petitioner, so as to co-operate in investigation. Hence, it is prayed that the impugned order may be quashed and the present criminal miscellaneous petition with respect to petitioner, Tarif Ansari may be allowed. 5. Learned A.P.P. appearing for the State has opposed the prayer and has submitted that the very fact that the learned Magistrate has issued the proclamation under Section 82 of Cr.P.C. and non-bailable warrant of arrest itself shows that there were materials available in the record for the learned Magistrate to be satisfied that there is justification for issuance of such proclamation, when the report regarding execution of non-bailable warrant of arrest was made accessible to the Court. The offences does not warrant notice under Section 41A of the Cr.P.C. Hence, it is submitted that this criminal miscellaneous petition being without any merit be dismissed. 6. It appears that the learned Judicial Magistrate has considered all aspects of the case while passing the impugned order. The argument advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner that no notice under Section 41A of the Cr.P.C. was ever issued to the petitioner is concerned, the maximum sentence for the offence under Sections 467 & 471 I.P.C. is more than seven years, hence, there is no requirement to issue such notice in this case. 7. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, this Court finds that impugned order does not suffers from any illegality. Accordingly, this criminal miscellaneous petition is hereby dismissed. (Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.) Sunil/