[2025:JHHC:13955] 1 Cr. M.P. No.1009 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr.M.P. No.1009 of 2025 ------ Khurshid Ansari, aged about 49 years, son of late Rojamat Ansari, resident of Village Amba Toli, Kumbariya, P.O. Akashi, P.S. Bhandra, District Lohardaga, Jharkhand. … Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand … Opposite Party ------ For the Petitioner : Mr. Rajiv Ranjan, Advocate For the State : Mr. Prabir Kr. Chatterjee, Spl.P.P. ------ P R E S E N T HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY By the Court:- Heard the parties. 2. This Criminal Miscellaneous Petition has been filed invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 with three prayers but learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner does not press the prayer to quash the order dated 20.03.2014 passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Garhwa in connection with Garhwa P.S. Case No.607 of 2013 arising out of Complaint Case No. C-1149 of 2012 corresponding to G.R. Case No.2489 of 2013. 3. Accordingly, the prayer to quash and set aside the order dated 20.03.2014 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Garhwa in connection with Garhwa P.S. Case No.607 of 2013 arising out of Complaint Case No. C-1149 of 2012 corresponding to G.R. Case No.2489 of 2013 is rejected as not pressed. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner next submits that the petitioner confines his prayer only to quash the orders dated 10.08.2016 and 03.11.2016 passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Garhwa in connection with [2025:JHHC:13955] 2 Cr. M.P. No.1009 of 2025 Garhwa P.S. Case No.607 of 2013 arising out of Complaint Case No. C-1149 of 2012 corresponding to G.R. Case No.2489 of 2013 whereby and where under the proclamation under Section 82 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and the attachment order of property under Section 83 of the Code of Criminal Procedure have respectively been issued against the petitioner. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that vide order dated 10.08.2016 passed in the said case, the proclamation under Section 82 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been issued against the petitioner without recording any satisfaction that the petitioner is absconding or concealing himself to evade his arrest which is a sine qua non for issuing proclamation under Section 82 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and without fixing any time or place for appearance for the petitioner who is one of the accused persons of the case. Hence, it is submitted that the said order dated 10.08.2016 being not sustainable in law, be quashed and set aside. 6. So far as the order dated 03.11.2016 is concerned, learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that without any information available in the record to show that the proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. was in fact made and without mentioning the description of the property to be attached, learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Garhwa has directed for issuance of order for attachment of the property of the petitioner under Section 83 of the Code of Criminal Procedure vide the said order dated 03.11.2016. Hence, it is submitted that the said order dated 03.11.2016 also being not sustainable in law, be quashed and set aside. 7. Learned Spl.P.P. appearing for the State on the other hand vehemently opposes the prayer of the petitioner for quashing the orders dated 10.08.2016 [2025:JHHC:13955] 3 Cr. M.P. No.1009 of 2025 and 03.11.2016 and submits the very fact that the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Garhwa has issued the proclamation under Section 82 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and the order for attachment for the property under Section 83 of the Code of Criminal Procedure itself shows that there were sufficient materials available in the record for the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Garhwa to be satisfied that there is justification for issuance of such proclamation under Section 82 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and the order for attachment of property under Section 83 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Hence, it is submitted that this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition, being without any merit, be dismissed. 8. Having heard the rival submissions made at the Bar and after carefully going through the materials available in the record, it is pertinent to mention here that by now it is a settled principle of law that the court which issues the proclamation under Section 82 of the Code of Criminal Procedure must record its satisfaction that the accused in respect of whom the proclamation under Section 82 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is made, is absconding or concealing himself to evade his arrest and in case the court decides to issue proclamation under Section 82 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, it must mention the time and place for appearance of the petitioner in the order itself by which the proclamation under Section 82 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is issued. 9. As already indicated above since the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Garhwa has neither recorded its satisfaction that the petitioner is absconding or concealing himself to evade his arrest which is a sine qua non for issuing proclamation under Section 82 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, nor fixed [2025:JHHC:13955] 4 Cr. M.P. No.1009 of 2025 any time or place for appearance of the petitioner who is one of the accused persons of the case concerned, this Court has no hesitation in holding that the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Garhwa has committed gross illegality by issuing the said proclamation under Section 82 of the Code of Criminal Procedure without complying with the mandatory requirements of law. Hence, the same is not sustainable in law and the continuation of the same will amount to abuse of process of law and this is a fit case where the order dated 10.08.2016 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Garhwa in connection with Garhwa P.S. Case No.607 of 2013 arising out of Complaint Case No. C-1149 of 2012 corresponding to G.R. Case No.2489 of 2013 be quashed and set aside. 10. Accordingly, the order dated 10.08.2016 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Garhwa in connection with Garhwa P.S. Case No.607 of 2013 arising out of Complaint Case No. C-1149 of 2012 corresponding to G.R. Case No.2489 of 2013, is quashed and set aside. 11. So far as the order dated 03.11.2016 in connection with the said case is concerned, it is a settled principle of law that the court issuing proclamation under Section 82 of the Code of Criminal Procedure may for reasons to be recorded in writing at any time after the issuance of proclamation, order for attachment of any property movable or immovable or both belonging to the proclaimed person. Now, in the absence of any material in the record to suggest that the proclamation under Section 82 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was in fact made in accordance with law, certainly the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Garhwa committed gross illegality by passing the order for attachment of the property of the petitioner without mentioning the description of the property to be attached and without recording any reason in writing [2025:JHHC:13955] 5 Cr. M.P. No.1009 of 2025 about the need for passing such order of attachment. Hence, under such circumstances, this Court has no hesitation in holding that the order dated 03.11.2016 passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Garhwa in connection with Garhwa P.S. Case No.607 of 2013 arising out of Complaint Case No. C- 1149 of 2012 corresponding to G.R. Case No.2489 of 2013 is also not in accordance with law and continuation of the same will amount to abuse of process of law and this is a fit case where the order dated 03.11.2016 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Garhwa in connection with Garhwa P.S. Case No.607 of 2013 arising out of Complaint Case No. C-1149 of 2012 corresponding to G.R. Case No.2489 of 2013, be quashed and set aside. 12. Accordingly, the order dated 03.11.2016 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Garhwa in connection with Garhwa P.S. Case No.607 of 2013 arising out of Complaint Case No. C-1149 of 2012 corresponding to G.R. Case No.2489 of 2013, is quashed and set aside. 13. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Garhwa may pass a fresh order in accordance with law. 14. In the result, this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition is allowed. (Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi Dated the 06th of May, 2025 AFR/ Saroj