Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Mukesh vs State & Anr on 23 January, 2017
Author: Vijay Bishnoi
Bench: Vijay Bishnoi
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B.Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 197 / 2017
Mukesh Jain S/o Mahaveer Prasad Ji Jain, R/o House No. 26, Shiv
Shakti Nagar, Jodhpur
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State of Rajasthan
2. Jai Dutt Sharma S/o Dr. K.d. Sharma, R/o A/12 Sarswati Nagar,
Jodhpur.
----Respondents
_____________________________________________________
For Petitioner(s) : Mr Anand Purohit Sr. Advocate assisted by
Mr Akshay Parakh
For Respondent(s) : Vikram Rajpurohit - PP
_____________________________________________________
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAY BISHNOI
Judgment / Order 23/01/2017 This criminal misc. petition under section 482 CrPC has been filed by the petitioner being aggrieved with the order dated 24.09.2016 passed by the Sessions Judge, Jodhpur, Metropolitan (for short 'the appellate court' hereinafter), whereby the criminal appeal filed by the petitioner has been dismissed. The said criminal appeal was filed by the petitioner being aggrieved with the order dated 27.06.2016 passed by the Special Metropolitan Magistrate (N.I.Act Cases) No.2, Jodhpur (for short 'the trial court' hereinafter), whereby it has forfeited the bail bonds of the petitioner and summoned him through arrest of warrant.
Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner is facing trial for the offence punishable under section 138 of the (2 of 4) [CRLMP-197/2017] Negotiable Instrument Act (for short 'the N.I.Act' hereinafter) before the trial court along with co-accused Rakesh Jain. When the petitioner and other accused-person failed to appear before the trial court on 02.02.2015, the trial court vide order dated 02.02.2015 forfeited the bail bonds submitted by them and ordered for initiation of the proceedings under section 446 CrPC and further summoned them through warrant of arrest.
Against the order dated 02.02.2015, the petitioner has preferred an appeal before the appellate court, which was allowed vide order 02.06.2016 and the order dated 02.02.2015 passed by the trial court was set aside and the petitioner and other accused- person were directed to remain present before the trial court on the next date of hearing. The appellate court has further observed that if the accused-persons fail to appear before the trial court on the next date of hearing, the trial court will be free to summon the accused-persons through warrant of arrest. Pursuant to the directions given by the appellate court, accused-Rakesh Jain appeared before the trial court, however, the petitioner failed to put in his appearance and instead preferred an application under section 317 CrPC before the trial court. The trial court vide order dated 27.06.2016 dismissed the application filed by the petitioner under section 317 CrpC and forfeited the bail bonds and summoned him through warrant of arrest. The appeal preferred against the order dated 27.06.2016 passed by the trial court has been dismissed by the appellate court vide order dated 24.09.2016. Hence, this criminal misc. petition.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that (3 of 4) [CRLMP-197/2017] the trial court has erred in rejecting the application filed by the petitioner under section 317 CrPC and also erred in summoning the petitioner through warrant of arrest. It is contended that enquiry or trial against an accused can be held in his absence as per section 317 CrPC, however, the trial court as well as the appellate court without appreciating the provisions of section 317 CrPC illegally passed the impugned orders.
Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor supported the impugned orders and prayed for dismissal of this criminal misc. petition.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Public Prosecutor and perused the impugned orders as well as the material available on record.
It is not in dispute that earlier on 02.02.2015, when the petitioner and other accused-person Rakesh Jain failed to appear before the trial court, the trial court forfeited their bail bonds and summoned them through warrant of arrest. Against the said order, the petitioner approached the appellate court by way of an appeal and the appellate court vide order dated 02.06.2016 set aside the order dated 02.02.2015 passed by the trial court and directed the petitioner and accused Rakesh Jain to appear before the trial court on the next date of hearing with the observations that if the accused-persons fail to appear before the trial court on the next date of hearing, then the trial court will be free to forfeit their bail bonds and summon them through warrant of arrest.
Admittedly, the petitioner did not appear before the trial court on the next date of hearing, though one of the accused (4 of 4) [CRLMP-197/2017] Rakesh Jain put in his appearance. Hence, the trial court forfeited the bail bonds of the petitioner and summoned him through warrant of arrest as per the observations made by the appellate court in the appeal preferred by the petitioner and other accused- person.
After going through the impugned orders passed by both the courts below, I do not find any illegality in the same as the trial court has passed the impugned order dated 27.06.2016 as per the observations/directions issued by the appellate court in the appeal filed by the petitioner. The application filed on behalf of the petitioner under section 317 CrPC has rightly been rejected by the trial court and the appellate court has rightly upheld the order passed by the trial court.
In view of the above, no case for interference is made out in this criminal misc. petition and the same is, hereby dismissed.
Stay petition also stands dismissed.
(VIJAY BISHNOI),J.
m.asif/PS