Allahabad High Court
Ram Murti Verma vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. ... on 29 June, 2022
Author: Manish Mathur
Bench: Manish Mathur
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH ?Court No. - 10 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 4087 of 2022 Applicant :- Ram Murti Verma Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Addl.Chief Secy. Home Lko. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Praveen Kumar Yadav,Shivanshu Goswami,Shubham Tripathi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Manish Mathur,J.
Learned counsel for petitioner is granted liberty to incorporate to challenge the non-bailable warrant during course of day in the prayer clause of the petition.
Heard Mr. Shubham Tripathi and Mr. Praveen Kumar Yadav, learned counsel for petitioner and learned AGA appearing on behalf of opposite party no.1 State.
In view of order being proposed to be passed, notices to opposite party no.2 stand dispensed with.
Petition under section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed challenging the proceedings of criminal case no.169 of 2022 (State versus Ram Murti Verma), under Sections 143, 152, 283, 188 IPC and Section 7 Criminal Law Amendment Act pending before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ambedkar Naga.
Learned counsel for petitioner submits that in the aforesaid criminal case, the prosecution had filed an application under Section 321 Cr.P.C. dated 21.01.2016 for withdrawal of prosecution against the petitioner but the same is still pending consideration of the court concerned. It is submitted that during pendency of the aforesaid application, summons were issued to the petitioner on 22.04.2008 whereafter the application under Section 321 Cr.P.C. has been filed but in the meantime without any decision on the aforesaid application, bailable warrant was issued against the application on 09.12.2018, which were never served upon the petitioner whereafter non-bailable warrants have also been issued on 26.04.2022.
Learned counsel for petitioner submits that once the prosecution had filed an application under Section 321 Cr.P.C. for withdrawal of prosecution, there was no occasion for the Court to have required presence of the petitioner. He has placed reliance on the judgment rendered by Coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Shailesh Kumar Yadav versus State of U.P. through Principal Secretary (Home) Civil Secretariat & Ors. passed in Miscellaneous Case No.95 (U/s 482/378/407) of 2017 on 27.03.2017 which in turn has placed reliance on judgment by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of Rajendra Kumar Jain versus State, reported in (1980) 3 SCC, Page 345 to substantiate his submission that there was no occasion for the Court concerned to have required presence of petitioner prior to decision on the application under Section 321 Cr.P.C. That being so, there was no occasion for the Court to have issued bailable or non-bailable warrants.
Learned AGA appearing on behalf of State while opposing the petition does not dispute the aforesaid proposition of law.
Upon consideration of submissions advanced by learned counsel for parties and perusal of material available on record, it is evident that after issuance of summons in the year 2008, application under Section 321 Cr.P.C. was filed by the prosecution on 21.01.2016, which still appears to be pending. It has been specially stated in paragraph no.20 and 21 of the petition that the aforesaid application filed under Section 321 Cr.P.C. are still pending consideration of the court concerned.
Upon applicability of judgment rendered by coordinate bench of this Court in the case of Shailesh Kumar Yadav (supra), it is evident that the court concerned was first required to decide the application under Section 321 of Cr.P.C. prior to requiring presence of the petitioner. In such an event, there was no occasion for the Court who have issued bailable or non-bailable warrants in the present manner.
Considering the aforesaid facts and proposition of law, it is evident that bailable and non-bailable warrants issued against the petitioner were clearly against the dictum of this Court. As such, the court concerned is directed to decide pending application under Section 321 Cr.P.C. expeditiously, preferably within a period of four weeks from the date a certified copy of this order is brought on record of the proceedings. The bailable and non-bailable warrants passed against the petitioner earlier dated 16.09.2021 and 26.04.2022 shall be kept in abeyance.
In terms of aforesaid, the petition stands allowed at the admission stage itself.
Order Date :- 29.6.2022 Subodh/-