VISHNU CHANDRA GUPTA, J. - (1.) HEARD Sri Jyotinjay Mishra, Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Kapil Misra, learned counsel for the petitioners, learned A.G.A. for the State and Sri Pankaj Gupta, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2.
(2.) BY means of this petition, under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., the petitioners have prayed for quashing the order dated 26.09.2014 passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hardoi in Complaint Case No.3682 of 2012 (Meena Kumari Vs. Ramesh Tripathi and others), under Section 302 IPC whereby the process under Sections 82 and 83, Cr.P.C. has been issued simultaneously along with non bailable warrant against the petitioners.
(3.) IT has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioners that the manner in which the process has been issued simultaneously under Sections 82 and 83, Cr.P.C. is not sustainable. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the petitioners relied upon the judgment of this Court rendered in Devendra Singh Negi Vs. State of U.P. and others, 1993 3 AllCriC 455. The process under Sections 82 and 83, Cr.P.C. cannot be issued simultaneously in view of the provisions contained itself in these sections. Before making the attachment of the property of a person, who is absconding, the procedure must be followed as provides in Section 82 of Cr.P.C. and in that process, if court is satisfied that person is absconding and concealing himself so that warrant of arrest could not be executed. The court then publish a written proclamation requiring him to appear at a specified place and time which shall not be less than 30 days of publication of such proclamation and if, the accused failed to appear during such period only then an order under Section 83, Cr.P.C. could be passed.;