Patna High Court – Orders
Mukesh Pandit vs The State Of Bihar on 24 April, 2026
Author: Sunil Dutta Mishra
Bench: Sunil Dutta Mishra
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
9/11only 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
