Jharkhand HC Sets Aside Proclamation Under Section 82 CrPC for Lack of Judicial Satisfaction
Cr.M.P. no. 3131 of 2023
By Rishika Sinha
The Jharkhand High Court has quashed a proclamation order issued under Section 82 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, holding that such coercive process cannot be initiated without strict compliance with the statutory requirements. The case arose from a criminal miscellaneous petition filed by Pradeep Bharadwaj/Petitioner under Section 482 Cr.P.C., assailing the order dated March 29, 2023, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge–I, Ramgarh in connection with Mandu (Kujju) P.S. Case No. 259 of 2005 corresponding to Electricity Case No. 1788 of 2005, whereby proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. had been issued against him.
At the outset, the petitioner confined his challenge solely to the validity of the said proclamation order, contending that the same had been issued in complete derogation of the mandatory procedure prescribed under law, inasmuch as the court below neither recorded its satisfaction that the petitioner was absconding or concealing himself to evade arrest, nor specified the time and place for his appearance in the proclamation. It was thus urged that the impugned order was ex facie illegal and liable to be quashed. The State and the opposite party no.2 opposed the petition, submitting that the very issuance of the proclamation indicated the existence of sufficient grounds and justified exercise of jurisdiction by the trial court, and therefore, no interference was warranted.
Justice Anil Kumar Choudhary, upon consideration of the submissions and materials on record, held that it is a settled principle of law that before proclaiming Section 82 Cr.P.C., the court must record its satisfaction that the accused has absconded or is concealing himself to evade arrest, and further, the proclamation must necessarily specify the time and place for the appearance of the accused. On examining the impugned order, the Court found that the Additional Sessions Judge–I, Ramgarh, had neither recorded such satisfaction nor fixed any time or place for the appearance of the petitioner, thereby rendering the order unsustainable in law.
Accordingly, the High Court quashed and set aside the order dated March 29, 2023, insofar as it related to the petitioner, while granting liberty to the trial court to pass a fresh order in accordance with law. The criminal miscellaneous petition was thus allowed to the aforesaid extent.
