High Court Of ChhattisgarhCRMP/308/2021disposed off

Dr. Ram Kumar Nayak v. Gajanan Agrawal

2021-03-17Hon'Ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal11 pages

AFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 303 of 2021 Dr. Ram Kumar Nayak S/o Shankar Lal Nayak, Aged about 39 years, R/o Village Sarkanda, Police Station & Tahsil Basna, Distt. Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh.

---Petitioner/Accused

Versus

Gajanan Agrawal S/o Gigraj Agrawal, Aged about 36 years, R/o Village Basna, Police Station and Tahsil Basna, Distt. Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh. --- Respondent/Complainant CRMP No. 308 of 2021 Dr. Ram Kumar Nayak S/o Shankar Lal Nayak, Aged about 39 years, R/o Village Sarkanda, Police Station & Tahsil Basna, Distt. Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh.

------Petitioner/Accused

Versus

Gajanan Agrawal S/o Gigraj Agrawal, Aged about 36 years, R/o Village Basna, Police Station and Tahsil Basna, Distt. Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh. --- Respondent/Complainant For Petitioner :- Mr. Vaibhav A. Goverdhan, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal Order on Board

17/03/2021

1. Since common question of fact and law is involved in both of these petitions, therefore, they are heard together and are being disposed of by this common order.

2. In both of these petitions, the petitioner/accused and respondent/complainant are one and the same. The respondent/complainant preferred an application under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 before learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Basna, Distt.

Mahasamund in which the petitioner/accused appeared and ultimately on 23/07/2018, final argument was heard and the matter was reserved for pronouncement of order on 30/07/2018 but unfortunately, on that day, the petitioner/accused became unwell and filed an application under Section 317 of CrPC for exemption from personal appearance which was granted and the matter was then fixed for the next day i.e. 31/07/2018, but on account of petitioner/accused suffering from paralysis, he again could not appear before the Court on 31/07/2018 and the matter was finally fixed for 06/08/2018.

On 06/08/2018, when the

petitioner/accused still did not appear before that Court, learned trial Magistrate rejected petitioner's application for exemption from personal appearance and after declaring him as an absentee, straightway issued warrant of arrest against him and thereafter, on 20/08/2018, the warrant of arrest returned unserved. Ultimately, on 07/02/2019, learned trial Magistrate straightway declared the petitioner/accused to be absconded and issued a standing warrant of arrest against him which has been sought to be challenged by the petitioner/accused in both of these petitions.

3. Mr. Vaibhav A. Goverdhan, learned counsel for the petitioner/accused, would submit that the procedure laid down in sub-sections (1) and (2) of Section 82 of CrPC has not been followed by learned trial Magistrate and straightway permanent warrant of arrest has been issued against the petitioner/accused which is illegal and bad in law as the provisions contained under Section 82(1) & (2) have to be followed mandatorily before declaring any person as a proclaimed absconder, therefore, the standing warrant of arrest issued against the

petitioner/accused deserves to be set aside and the trial Court be directed to hear the matter afresh and pronounce the judgment as final arguments have already been heard on 23/07/2018 i.e. more than two years back and since the final argument has already been heard and merely because of the absence of the petitioner/accused, judgment could not be pronounced, petitioner/accused is ready and willing to appear before that Court.

4. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner/accused, considered his submissions and perused the records.

5. Sub-sections (1) and (2) of Section 82 of CrPC provide as under :- "82. Proclamation for person absconding. -

(1) If any Court has reason to believe (whether after taking evidence or not) that any person against whom a warrant has been issued by it has absconded or is concealing himself so that such warrant cannot be executed, such Court may publish a written proclamation requiring him to appear at a specified place and at a specified time not less than thirty days from the date of publishing such proclamation.

(2) The proclamation shall be published as follows - (i)(a) it shall be publicly read in some conspicuous place of the town or village in which such person ordinarily resides;

(b) it shall be affixed to some conspicuous part of the house or homestead in which such person ordinarily resides or to some conspicuous place of such town or village;

(ii) the Court may also, if it thinks fit, direct a copy of the proclamation to be published in a daily newspaper circulating in the place in which such person ordinarily resides."

6. A careful perusal of the aforesaid provision would show that sub-section (1) of Section 82 of CrPC provides that the Court must have reasons to believe that the person, against whom warrant of arrest has been issued, has absconded so that warrant could not be executed and only after the Court is satisfied that the person is absconding, the Court should issue proclamation requiring the accused to appear on a specified date on specified time not less than 30 days from the date of publication of such proclamation. Sub-section (2) of Section 82 of CrPC provides the manner of publication of proclamation.

7. The expression "reason to believe" occurring in Section 82 of CrPC suggests that the Court must be subjectively satisfied that the person has absconded or concealed himself on the materials

before him in order to avoid execution of warrant of arrest. [See: K.T.M.S. Abdul Cader v. Union of India1 & Rohit Kumar v. State of NCT (Delhi)2]. Mere issuance of notice to the accused person does not amount to declaration as proclaimed offender, the Court must record reason that the accused person is absconding, as the provisions of Section 82(2) of CrPC are mandatory [See: Devendra Singh Negi v. State of UP3]. Similarly, the proclamation must give clear 30 days for the appearance of the accused, the provision as to 30 days being mandatory, where the period given is less than 30 days, proclamation being invalid would be quashed [See: Rohit Kumar (supra)]. The three clauses (a), (b) and (c) of Sub-section (2)(i) of Section 82 of CrPC are conjuctive and not disjunctive.

The factum of valid proclamation depends on the satisfaction of each of these clauses [See: P.K. Gupta v. State of West Bengal4].

82 of CrPC has to be taken with great caution by the concerned Magistrate.

8. At this stage, it would be appropriate to notice the orders dated 06/08/2018, 06/02/2019 and 07/02/2019 passed by learned trial Magistrate, which state as under :- "06.08.18 पररववददसहहतशदसलजवअहधवकवउपहससत| आररपददवरवशदककककबवररकअहधवकवउपहससत| पकरणआजहनणरयहकतहनयतह| इसदसतरपरशदबवररकअहधवकवनकएकआवकदन धवरव317 द.प.स.

कवमयहचककतसवपमवणपतसहहतपकशकरहनवकदन ककयवककआररपदकरसववससयख़रवबहवहउपहससतहरनकमअसमसरनह आजककहतहसककठदकपलवरककहतहसमभदबचववपकदवरवधवरव317 द.प.स.

गहरहवजरद मवफ़क आवकदन मकहडकल कक सवस पसतत ककयव ह | बचववपककरहनदरहशतककयवगयवसवककआररपदकरअहनववयररपसक उपहससतरखकअनयसवगहरहवजरदमवफ़कआवकदनसवदकवरनहहककयवजवयकगव उसकक पशवत भद यह गहरहवजरद मवफ़क आवकदन पसतत ककयव गयव ह| पकरणहनणरयसतरपरहअततबतवएगएकवरणसदभवहवकनहहहरनकसक धवरव317 द.प.स.

कवगहरहवजरदमवफ़कआवकदनहनरसतककयवजवतवह | अहभयतकककहवरदअहभयतकककअनतपहससहतमहनणरयपवररतनहहककयक जवसकक| अहभयतककक हवरदउपहससहतसतहनहशतकरनकहकतहगरफ़तवरद ववरसटजवरद ककयकजववक| आररपदकक जमवनतमतचलकक हनरसतककयकजवतकह| पकरण अहभयतकककउपहससहतहकतहनयतककयवजवतवह| पकरणअहभयतकककउपहससहतहकतकदनवसक20.08.18 सहद/- शयवमकतमवरसवह नयवहयकमहजसटकटपसमशकणद बसनव, महवसमतसद(छ.ग.)"

नयवहयकमहजसटकटपसमशकणद बसनव, महवसमतसद(छ.ग.) पशवत इसद सतर पर आररपद डड0 रवमकतमवर नवयक कर जवरद हगरफ़तवरद ववरसट चचकक भसवरपतर सवनव बसनव कक आरकक कक दवरव अदम तवमदलववपसपकहषत, हजसककअनतसवरहगरफ़तवरदववरसटतहमलदकतवरककदवरव गवमसरकणडवमजवकरआररपदकक बवरकमपलछतवछककयवतरपतवचलव ककआररपदएकवषरसककहवरहतवह, कहवगयवकककरईजवनकवरदनहह ह | अतत उक ररपरटर कक अनतसवर हगरफ़तवरद ववरसट कक तहमलदकतवर अहधकवरदकमरचवरदकरफरवरदसवकयहकतसमससजवरदहर| पलवरमददगयदहतहसहनरसतककजवतदहअबपकरणववसतकफरवरदसवकय हकत:- 07/02/2019 सहद/- शयवमकतमवरसवह नयवहयकमहजसटकटपसमशकणद बसनव, महवसमतसद(छ.ग.) 07.02.2019 पररववदद सहहत शदबद. एस.

सलजव अहधवकव उपहससत| आररपदअनतपहससत| पकरणआजआररपदककफरवरदसवकयहकतहनयतह| आररपदकरजवरदहगरफ़तवरदववरसटतवहमलकतवरपधवनआरकक बहजनवसससहकमवसक88 उपहससत, उनकवफरवरदसवकयअसककतककयवगयव | यह पकरण कदनवसक 15.06.2015 कर अहभयतक कक हवरद पसततककयवगयवसव| आररपदकदनवसक30.07.2018 सकअनतपहससतह, आररपदककअनतपहससहतकक कवरणकदनवसक06.08.2018 करहनणरयसतर परआररपदकक हवरदहगरफ़तवरदववरसटजवरदककयकजवनककवआदकशकदयव गयवह| पररववदद अहधवकवशदसलजव कक दवरवभदयहवक ककयव गयवहककअहभयतककरजवरदहगरफ़तवरदववरसटककतवहमलदनहहहरपव रहदह| उपररकपररहससहतययमअहभयतकककहवरदधवरव299 द.प.स.

कक कवयरववहद कर उसक फरवर घरहषत ककयव जव सकतव ह| पररववदद अहधवकवशदसलजवनकयहभदवकककयवहककपकरणहनणरयसतरपर रहवह, अहभयतकककउपहससहतउपरवसतहदअहगमकवयरववहदककयवजवनव उहचतहरतवह| अततपकरणमअहभयतकककउपहससहततककवयरववहद ररककजववक| पकरणमहगरफ़तवरदववरसटककतवहमलदकरतवपधवनआरकक बहजनवसससहफरवरदसवकयहकतउपहससतहउसकवकसनलकखबदककयव गयव ह, उसकक कसन अनतसवर वह आररपद कक गवगव जवकर आररपद कक समबनधमपलछतवछककयवतरआररपदकक समबनधमवहकहवगयवह, कहव गयव ह, इसकक जवनकवरद नहह हरनव बतवयक ह, पधवन आरकक बहजनवसससहकक कसनअनतसवरआररपदकवहनकटभहवषयमहमलनककक करईसमभववनवनहहह|

पकरणआररपदककअनतपहससहतकक कवरणअनववशयकरपसकलसहबतह| आररपदडड.

रवमकतमवरनवयककवहनकटभहवषयमहमलनकककसभववनव पतदतनहहहरतदह| अततआररपदडड.

रवमकतमवरनवयककरफरवरघरहषत ककयव जवतव ह| पकरण म आररपद डड.

रवमकतमवर कक हवरद ससवयद हगरफ़तवरदववरसट जवरदहर| पकरण ववहससत कर सतरहकत रखक जवनक हकत अहभलकखवगवर पकहषतककयवजववकएवसपकरणककमतखयपषपरलवलसयवहदसकयहअसककत ककयव जववक कक "

अहभयतक फरवर ह, अतत पकरण सतरहकत रखव जववक|"

पकरणअहभलकखगरपकहषतहर| सहद/- शयवमकतमवरसवह नयवहयकमहजसटकटपसमशकणद बसनव, महवसमतसद(छ.ग.)"

9. A careful perusal of the aforesaid orders would show that on 06/08/2018, learned trial Magistrate issued warrant of arrest against the petitioner/accused and when it returned unserved, on 06/02/2019, he directed for issuance of fresh warrant of arrest against the petitioner/accused and fixed the matter for 07/03/2019 and signed it but thereafter, he again recalled that order and placed the matter for consideration on 07/02/2019. Then, on 07/02/2019, learned trial Magistrate declared the petitioner/accused as an absconder giving complete go-by to the provisions contained under sub-sections (1) and (2) of Section 82 of CrPC. It is quite apparent from the aforesaid orders that the Court has not recorded satisfaction that petitioner/accused is absconding or is

concealing himself in order to avoid service of warrant of arrest issued against him and moreover, the proclamation has also not been published asking him to appear within 30 days at specified time and place in the manner prescribed under Section 82(2) of CrPC and straightway, petitioner/accused has been declared as absconder and permanent warrant of arrest has been issued against him. The procedure adopted by learned trial Magistrate is contrary to sub-sections (1) and (2) of Section 82 of CrPC and without following the procedure which is mandatory in character, the petitioner/accused has been declared as absconder and permanent warrant of arrest has been issued against him, which is absolutely illegal and bad in law, as such, the impugned orders are hereby set aside in both the petitions.

Petitioner/accused is accordingly directed to appear before the trial Magistrate on 05/04/2021.

trial Magistrate currently posted at Basna, Mahasamund is directed to decide the matter within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

10. With the aforesaid observations/directions, both the petitions are disposed of. No cost(s).

11. A copy of this order be sent to the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Basna Mahasamund as well as to Shri Shyam Kumar Sahu, the then J.M.F.C., at the place of his posting for information.

Sd/- (Sanjay K. Agrawal) Judge Harneet