The Jharkhand High Court has clarified that before issuing a non-bailable warrant or further coercive steps such as proceedings under Sections 82, 83, and 299 CrPC, courts must strictly comply with the mandate of Section 73 CrPC, including ensuring proof of service of previous process. Orders passed in violation of these procedures are liable to be quashed. This judgment upholds existing Supreme Court precedent and sets a binding procedural standard for all subordinate courts in Jharkhand, especially in criminal trials involving absent accused persons.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | Cr.M.P./2569/2025 of OM PRAKASH SINGH Vs THE STATE OF JHARKHAND |
| CNR | JHHC010275662025 |
| Date of Registration | 04-09-2025 |
| Decision Date | 30-10-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | Disposed Off |
| Judgment Author | HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI |
| Court | High Court of Jharkhand |
| Precedent Value | Binding precedent for subordinate courts in Jharkhand |
| Overrules / Affirms | Affirms Supreme Court precedent (Inder Mohan Goswami v. State of Uttaranchal, (2007) 12 SCC 1) |
| Type of Law | Criminal Procedure |
| Questions of Law | Whether coercive processes (NBW, Proclamation, Attachment, Section 299 CrPC) can be issued without verifying service of earlier processes as mandated by Section 73 CrPC. |
| Ratio Decidendi |
The court held that it is mandatory for courts to follow the procedure prescribed under Section 73 of the CrPC before issuing non-bailable warrants. In the absence of execution reports of summons and bailable warrants, subsequent coercive actions—such as issuing non-bailable warrants, proceedings under Sections 82, 83, and invoking Section 299—are without the sanction of law. Orders passed in violation of these procedural safeguards are liable to be quashed. Reference was made to the Supreme Court judgment in Inder Mohan Goswami v. State of Uttaranchal, which underlined the judicious use of powers to issue coercive process. |
| Judgments Relied Upon | Inder Mohan Goswami & another v. State of Uttaranchal & others, (2007) 12 SCC 1 |
| Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities Relied Upon by the Court | The logic adopted is that statute mandates a sequential process in issuing coercive orders against an accused. Judicial authorities must ensure all prior procedural steps—especially proof of service—are actually complied with before escalating the process. Supreme Court’s guidance on judicious and sparing use of coercive process was adopted. |
| Facts as Summarised by the Court | The orders issuing non-bailable warrants, proclamation, and attachment were made without reports of service of summons or warrants. The petitioner contended lack of knowledge due to non-service, and a co-accused had already been acquitted. The State did not dispute the absence of service reports. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts in Jharkhand |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts, especially regarding procedural compliance in criminal cases |
| Follows | Inder Mohan Goswami v. State of Uttaranchal & others, (2007) 12 SCC 1 |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Reiterates and enforces the requirement of actual service/attempted service of previous processes before escalation to warrants/proclamation/attachment.
- Strict compliance with Section 73 CrPC is now a binding procedural requirement in Jharkhand; non-compliance will render orders liable to be quashed.
- The judgment affirms that Section 299 CrPC proceedings cannot be invoked without prior completion of all service formalities.
- Lawyers should meticulously check service records before seeking or challenging coercive process orders.
- Reference to Supreme Court’s Inder Mohan Goswami provides additional persuasive authority when challenging improper issuance of warrants or ex parte proceedings.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The court closely examined the sequence of orders by the Special Judge, noting the absence of any execution report for summons, bailable warrants, or non-bailable warrants.
- The High Court found that escalation to non-bailable warrants, proceedings under Section 82 (proclamation), Section 83 (attachment), and Section 299 (trial in absence of accused) were made without ensuring compliance with the statutory requirement of prior service, as laid down in Section 73 CrPC.
- The judgment relied upon the Supreme Court’s guidance in Inder Mohan Goswami v. State of Uttaranchal, which emphasizes sparing and judicious use of coercive processes and strict adherence to procedure.
- The court concluded that all subsequent orders passed without proof of service were contrary to law and liable to be quashed.
- The matter was remanded for fresh proceedings, in compliance with the procedural requirements.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner
- Highlighted that orders were passed for non-bailable warrants, proclamation, and attachment without proof of service of prior processes (summons or bailable warrant).
- Stated that the petitioner had no knowledge of proceedings due to absence of service.
- Pointed out that a similarly situated co-accused had already been acquitted.
Respondent (State)
- Submitted that the non-appearance of the petitioner before the trial court led to the impugned orders.
- Did not dispute that there were no service reports of summons or warrants on record prior to issuance of coercive process.
Factual Background
The case arose from long-pending criminal proceedings dating back to 1990. The trial court issued several coercive orders against the petitioner—non-bailable warrants, proclamation under Section 82 CrPC, attachment under Section 83, and proceedings under Section 299—without any execution report showing service of prior processes. The petitioner contended having no notice of proceedings and pointed out that a co-accused had been acquitted. The State admitted there was no proof of service before the impugned orders were issued.
Statutory Analysis
The judgment interprets and enforces Section 73 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC), which prescribes mandatory procedure for issuance of warrants, including the requirement to attempt service of summons and bailable warrants before escalating to non-bailable warrants. Sections 82 (proclamation), 83 (attachment), and 299 (evidence in absence of accused) were also considered, with the court emphasizing statutory sequencing and procedural safeguards. The judgment follows a narrow, strict interpretation to ensure procedural compliance before abridging an accused’s rights.
Dissenting / Concurring Opinion Summary
No dissenting or concurring opinions were recorded in the judgment.
Procedural Innovations
No new procedural innovations were introduced. The judgment strictly enforced existing procedural law with respect to issuing coercive processes.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – The judgment strictly follows and reinforces existing Supreme Court precedent on the mandatory procedures before issuing coercive process against absconding accused.