[2025:JHHC:32587] -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr.M.P. No. 2569 of 2025 1. Om Prakash Singh, aged about 67 years, S/o Late. Chandra Bhusan Singh, R/o and P.O.-Alawalpur and P.S.-Gaurichak, District- Patna, Bihar. 2. Mahendra Kumar Kaushal, aged about 67 years, S/o Late Raj Ballabh Singh, R/o salimpur P.O shikandarpur P.S.-Sukhrabad, District-Jahanabad, Bihar; 3. Mahendra Singh, aged about 68 years, S/o Late. Ram Pukar Singh, R/o bhikanpur P O and P. S. chakan District-Gaya, Bihar. ..... … Petitioner Versus State of Jharkhand. ..... … Opposite Party -------- CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI ------ For the Petitioner : Mr. Kaushik Sarkhel, Advocate. : Mr. Rahul Dev, Advocate : Mr. Abhishek Singh, Advocte. For the State : Mrs. Nehala Sharmin, Spl.P.P. ------ 05/ 30.10.2025 Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned Spl.P.P. appearing for the State through V.C. 2. This petition has been filed under Section 528 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 for quashing of the orders dated 01.09.2018 and 20.07.2019 respectively, passed by the learned Special Judge, Vigilance (ACB), Hazaribagh, in connection with Barkatha P.S. Case No. 79 of 1990 corresponding to Special Vigilance Case No. 01 of 1991, by which, the learned court has been pleased to issue non-bailable warrant against the petitioner twice without complying the provisions of Section 73 of the Cr.P.C. Further prayer is made for quashing of the orders dated 27.11.2018 and 21.09.2019, passed by the same court, by which, processes under Section 82 Cr.P.C. has been issued against the petitioner twice. Prayer is further made for quashing of the order dated 10.01.2020, passed by the same court, by which, process under Section 83 of the Cr.P.C. has been issued against the petitioner. Lastly prayer is [2025:JHHC:32587] -2- made for quashing of the order dated 01.02.2023, passed by the same court, by which, the learned court has invoked the provisions of Section 299 of the Cr.P.C. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the certified copies of the entire order sheet of the case in hand have been brought on record. He draws the attention of the court to the orders dated 01.09.2018 and 21.09.2019 and submits that in these orders itself, it has been recorded that there is no service report of the bailable warrant and non-bailable warrant, in spite of that the orders have been passed. He further submits that the provisions of Section 299 of the Cr.P.C. has also been invoked by the learned court and the file has been confined to the record room. He next submits that the petitioner was having no knowledge, in view of that he had not appeared before the learned court. He then submits that one of the similarly situated co-accused has already been acquitted by the learned court. On these grounds, he submits that the aforementioned orders may kindly be quashed. 4. Learned Spl.P.P. appearing for the State through V.C. submits that the petitioner has not appeared before the learned court, in view of that the learned court has been pleased to pass the said orders, however, she is not disputing the fact that on examining the orders, brought on record, it has been found that the petitioner has not been served with the summon as well as bailable warrant of arrest and non- bailable warrant of arrest and without the execution report, the said orders have been passed. 5. In view of the above submissions of the parties and considering that the procedure prescribed under Section 73 of the Cr.P.C., has not been followed by the learned court and in absence of execution of any summon, twice NBWs, twice processes under Section 82 Cr.P.C., process under Section 83 Cr.P.C. and lastly the learned court has invoked the provisions of Section 299 of the Cr.P.C., which is [2025:JHHC:32587] -3- against the mandate of law. Reference may be made to the case of Inder Mohan Goswami & another v. State of Uttaranchal & others, reported in (2007) 12 SCC 1. 6. In view of the above, the orders dated 01.09.2018, 20.07.2019, 27.11.2018, 21.09.2019, 10.01.2020 and 01.02.2023, passed by the learned Special Judge, Vigilance (ACB), Hazaribagh, in connection with Barkatha P.S. Case No. 79 of 1990 corresponding to Special Vigilance Case No. 01 of 1991, are hereby, quashed. 7. The matter is remitted back to the learned court to proceed afresh in accordance with law. The petitioner is directed to appear before the learned court within two weeks from today. 8. This petition is allowed and disposed of in view of the above terms. (Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.) Dated:-30.10.2025 Amitesh/-