Patna High Court

Mukesh PanditversusThe State of Bihar

Decided: 24 April 2026
Disposal: ALLOWED
Bench: SUNIL DUTTA MISHRA

Holding

The orders of the trial court were set aside as they were passed without the requisite satisfaction of statutory conditions, and the coercive processes were quashed.

Summary

Mukesh Pandit filed an application under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. seeking quash of a series of orders issued by the Sub‑Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Hilsa, which included a bailable warrant, a non‑bailable warrant, proclamation under Section 82 and attachment under Section 83, ultimately declaring him a proclaimed offender. The trial court had issued summons but recorded no service report, yet proceeded to the coercive steps without any evidence of deliberate evasion or non‑service. The petitioner argued that the statutory scheme mandates a graded procedure and that the court’s actions violated natural justice. The respondents contended that the petitioner’s non‑appearance justified the escalated process. The High Court held that the trial court failed to satisfy the mandatory procedural requirements before issuing each coercive measure, rendering the orders patently illegal, and therefore set them aside, quashing all coercive steps and remitting the matter back to the trial court to restart from the summons stage. The application was allowed.

Issues considered

Whether the trial court’s issuance of bailable and non‑bailable warrants, proclamation under Section 82 and attachment under Section 83 without service reports violates the mandatory procedural requirements of the Cr.P.C.
Whether the High Court may exercise its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 to quash such orders.

Legislation cited

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 482, 82, 83
Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 — s. 3, 4
Indian Penal Code — s. 323, 34, 341, 379, 420, 467, 468, 477, 498, 504, 506

Subjects

Criminal Procedure
Section 482
Warrant issuance
Proclamation under Section 82
Attachment under Section 83
Procedural irregularity
Natural justice
Dowry Prohibition Act
IPC offences

Judgment

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.9711 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-747 Year-2022 Thana- COMPLAINT CASE - HILSA District-
Nalanda
======================================================
Mukesh Pandit, S/o Ramashish Pandit @ Ramasish Pandit, Resident Of
Korauta Bazar, Gopalpur, P.O. and P.S.- Lohta, Dist.- Varanasi- 221107, U.P.

... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Manisha Kumari, D/o Sanjay Pandit, Residing at Islampur Patel Nagar, P.S.-
Islampur, Dist.- Nalanda.

... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Ravi Prakash Dwivedi, Advocate
Mr. Saurabh Raj, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Arun Kumar Pandey, APP
For the O.P. No.2 : Mr. Bhim Sen Prasad, Advocate
Ms. Sushma Kumari, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL DUTTA MISHRA
ORAL ORDER

4 24-04-2026 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as

learned counsel for the O.P. No.2 and learned APP for the State.

2. The present application has been filed invoking the

inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code

of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as

‘Cr.P.C.’) for quashing of the orders dated 11.09.2023,

03.01.2024, 23.01.2025, 08.07.2025 and 03.11.2025 passed by

the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Hilsa, Nalanda

(hereinafter referred to as ‘Trial Court’) in connection with

Complaint Case No. 747 (C) of 2022, whereby successive

coercive processes including bailable warrant, non-bailable
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.9711 of 2026(4) dt.24-04-2026
2/11

warrant, proclamation under Section 82 of the Cr.P.C., and

attachment under Section 83 of the Cr.P.C. have been issued

against the petitioner and he has been declared proclaimed

offender, allegedly without receipt of service reports at the

preceding stages, and further for a direction to treat the case at

the stage of summons.

3. The prosecution case arises out of a complaint

instituted by the O.P. No.2 (complainant) alleging offences

under Sections 323, 341, 379, 504, 506, 498A, 467, 420, 468,

477 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and

under Sections 3 & 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961

against the petitioner and his family members. Upon inquiry,

cognizance was taken only against the petitioner for offences

under Sections 498A and 323 of the Indian Penal Code and

Sections 3 & 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, and summons

were directed to be issued.

4. It appears from the record that after issuance of

summons, the matter was taken up on several dates, however,

the service report of summons was not received. Thereafter,

vide order dated 11.09.2023, the learned trial court directed

issuance of bailable warrant of arrest against the petitioner.

Subsequently, in absence of service report of the bailable
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.9711 of 2026(4) dt.24-04-2026
3/11

warrant, non-bailable warrant of arrest was issued vide order

dated 03.01.2024. Thereafter, without receipt of execution report

of the non-bailable warrant, process under Section 82 Cr.P.C.

was directed to be issued, and ultimately, vide order dated

08.07.2025, process under Section 83 Cr.P.C. was also issued

against the petitioner. Subsequently, the petitioner has been

declared to be a proclaimed offender vide order dated

03.11.2025.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the

entire sequence of impugned orders reflects a complete non-

application of judicial mind by the learned Trial Court. He

submits that the statutory scheme of the Cr.P.C. mandates a

graded procedure, wherein coercive processes such as bailable

warrant, non-bailable warrant, proclamation under Section 82

Cr.P.C., and attachment under Section 83 Cr.P.C. can be issued

only upon due satisfaction regarding prior service and deliberate

non-appearance of the accused. It is further submitted that in the

present case, the learned Trial Court proceeded to issue

successive coercive processes without receiving any service

report of the earlier processes, thereby rendering the impugned

orders legally unsustainable.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.9711 of 2026(4) dt.24-04-2026
4/11

that such action of the learned Trial Court has resulted in serious

prejudice to the petitioner and amounts to violation of principles

of natural justice, as the petitioner was deprived of an

opportunity to appear before the learned Trial Court. Learned

counsel submits that the escalation of process, in absence of

foundational requirements, is contrary to settled legal principles

governing issuance of warrants and proclamation. It is thus

submitted that the impugned orders are fit to be quashed and the

proceeding be restored to the stage of summons in the interest of

justice.

7. Learned counsel for the O.P. No. 2 submits that the

learned Trial Court has rightly proceeded in the matter in view

of the continuous non-appearance of the petitioner despite

initiation of process. It is submitted that the complaint discloses

serious allegations relating to cruelty, assault, and dowry

demand, and the petitioner has deliberately avoided the

proceedings to frustrate the course of justice. Learned counsel

further submits that the impugned orders have been passed to

secure the presence of the petitioner and do not suffer from any

illegality warranting interference by this Court. Accordingly,

learned counsel prays that the present application be dismissed.

8. Learned APP for the State submits that the orders
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.9711 of 2026(4) dt.24-04-2026
5/11

passed by the learned Trial Court have been made in the course

of proceedings to secure the presence of the petitioner, who

failed to appear despite repeated opportunities. It is submitted

that the learned Trial Court was justified in proceeding with

coercive measures in view of the conduct of the petitioner and

the necessity to ensure expeditious progress of the case.

9. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties

and upon perusal of the materials available on record, this Court

finds that the scope of interference under Section 482 of the

Cr.P.C. is well settled. The inherent jurisdiction of this Court is

to be exercised sparingly, with circumspection, and only to

prevent abuse of the process of the court or to secure the ends of

justice. However, where the orders passed by the learned Trial

Court are found to be in violation of the mandatory procedure

prescribed under law or suffer from patent illegality, this Court

would be justified in exercising its inherent powers to correct

such jurisdictional errors.

10. Upon perusal of the order-sheet and materials

available on record, it transpires that after taking cognizance

against the petitioner, summons were directed to be issued;

however, on several dates fixed, no service report of summons

was received by the learned Trial Court. Despite the absence of
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.9711 of 2026(4) dt.24-04-2026
6/11

any such report indicating due service or deliberate avoidance

on the part of the petitioner, the learned Trial Court proceeded to

issue bailable warrant of arrest vide order dated 11.09.2023.

Thereafter, even without receipt of service report of the bailable

warrant, the learned Trial Court escalated the process and issued

non-bailable warrant of arrest vide order dated 03.01.2024,

which prima facie appears to be in deviation from the settled

procedure requiring satisfaction regarding non-execution or

evasion.

11. It further appears that in continuation of the

aforesaid approach, the learned Trial Court directed issuance of

process under Section 82 Cr.P.C. and subsequently under

Section 83 Cr.P.C. without there being any material on record to

show due execution of the non-bailable warrant or proper

compliance of the statutory requirements for proclamation. The

order-sheet consistently reflects non-receipt of service reports at

each stage, yet the coercive measures were successively

intensified. Such progression, in absence of foundational

satisfaction as mandated under law, indicates procedural

irregularity in the exercise of jurisdiction by the learned Trial

Court.

12. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Inder Mohan
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.9711 of 2026(4) dt.24-04-2026
7/11

Goswami and Anr. v. State of Uttranchal and Ors., reported in

(2007) 12 SCC 1, has observed as under:

“53. Non-bailable warrant should be issued
to bring a person to court when summons or
bailable warrants would be unlikely to have
the desired result. This could be when:
• it is reasonable to believe that the
person will not voluntarily appear in
court; or
• the police authorities are unable to find
the person to serve him with a
summon; or
• it is considered that the person could
harm someone if not placed into
custody immediately.

54. As far as possible, if the court is of the
opinion that a summon will suffice in getting
the appearance of the accused in the court,
the summon or the bailable warrants should
be preferred. The warrants either bailable or
non-bailable should never be issued without
proper scrutiny of facts and complete
application of mind, due to the extremely
serious consequences and ramifications
which ensue on issuance of warrants. The
court must very carefully examine whether
the criminal complaint or FIR has not been
filed with an oblique motive.

55. In complaint cases, at the first instance,
the court should direct serving of the
summons along with the copy of the
complaint. If the accused seem to be
avoiding the summons, the court, in the
second instance should issue bailable
warrant. In the third instance, when the
court is fully satisfied that the accused is
avoiding the court's proceeding
intentionally, the process of issuance of the
non-bailable warrant should be resorted to.
Personal liberty is paramount, therefore, we
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.9711 of 2026(4) dt.24-04-2026
8/11

caution courts at the first and second
instance to refrain from issuing non-bailable
warrants.

56. The power being discretionary must be
exercised judiciously with extreme care and
caution. The court should properly balance
both personal liberty and societal interest
before issuing warrants. There cannot be
any straitjacket formula for issuance of
warrants but as a general rule, unless an
accused is charged with the commission of
an offence of a heinous crime and it is feared
that he is likely to tamper or destroy the
evidence or is likely to evade the process of
law, issuance of non-bailable warrants
should be avoided.

57. The court should try to maintain proper
balance between individual liberty and the
interest of the public and the State while
issuing non-bailable warrant.”

13. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has recently observed

the legislative intent of Section 82 of the Cr.P.C. in Daljit Singh

v. State of Haryana and Anr., reported in 2025 SCC OnLine

SC 1, as herein under:

“7.1. The purpose of Section 82 Cr. P.C., as
can be understood from a bare reading of
the statutory text is to ensure that a person
who is called to appear before a Court, does
so. This Section appears as part of Chapter
VI which is titled ‘Process to Compel
Appearance’. Section 83 to 90 provide for
the additional method of attachment of
property to the end of securing appearance.
Necessarily then some or the other
proceeding has to be ongoing for which the
presence of such person is necessary. The
words of the Section dictate that it can be
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.9711 of 2026(4) dt.24-04-2026
9/11

only issued in respect of a person against
whom a warrant has been issued. Neither a
warrant nor proclamation subsequent can be
conjured up out of thin air.”

14. It is well settled that the provisions relating to

proclamation and attachment under Sections 82 and 83 of the

Cr.P.C. are drastic in nature and, therefore, are required to be

invoked with due caution and strict adherence to the procedure

prescribed therein. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has consistently

held that issuance of proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. can

only be resorted to after the Court records its satisfaction that

the accused has absconded or is concealing himself to avoid

execution of warrant, and that such satisfaction must be based

on material including proper execution report of non-bailable

warrant. Similarly, attachment under Section 83 Cr.P.C. is

consequential in nature and cannot be mechanically ordered

unless the conditions precedent for issuance of proclamation are

duly satisfied. A liberal and cautious approach is thus mandated

in such matters, ensuring that coercive processes are not issued

in a routine manner but only upon strict compliance with

statutory requirements, so as to safeguard the rights of the

accused and prevent misuse of process.

15. Applying the aforesaid settled principles to the

facts of the present case, this Court finds that the learned Trial
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.9711 of 2026(4) dt.24-04-2026
10/11

Court has proceeded to issue successive coercive processes

without recording the requisite satisfaction as mandated under

law and in absence of service reports at each preceding stage.

The order-sheet does not disclose any material to indicate that

the petitioner was deliberately evading service or had absconded

so as to justify invocation of proceedings under Sections 82 and

83 Cr.P.C. In such circumstances, the impugned orders appear to

have been passed in a mechanical manner, in clear deviation of

the statutory scheme, thereby rendering the same unsustainable

in the eyes of law.

16. Accordingly, in view of the discussions made

hereinabove, the impugned orders dated 11.09.2023,

03.01.2024, 23.01.2025, 08.07.2025 and 03.11.2025 passed by

the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Hilsa, Nalanda

in Complaint Case No. 747 (C) of 2022 are hereby set aside.

17. Resultantly, all the coercive steps taken against the

petitioner pursuant to the aforesaid impugned orders stand

quashed.

18. The present matter is remitted back to the Court

concerned with a direction to proceed afresh strictly in

accordance with law from the stage of issuance of summons,

after ensuring due service upon the petitioner. The petitioner is
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.9711 of 2026(4) dt.24-04-2026
11/11

also directed to cooperate in the proceedings and appear before

the learned Court concerned as and when required.

19. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the

present Criminal Miscellaneous Application stands allowed.

20. Let a copy of this order be transmitted forthwith to

the learned Court concerned for information and necessary

compliance.

(Sunil Dutta Mishra, J)
Ritik/-

U T

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…