Allahabad High Court
Sameer Ahmad & Ors. vs State Of U.P. & Anr. on 4 February, 2020
Author: Chandra Dhari Singh
Bench: Chandra Dhari Singh
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH ?Court No. - 14 Case :- U/S 482/378/407 No. - 667 of 2020 Applicant :- Sameer Ahmad & Ors. Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. & Anr. Counsel for Applicant :- Dhirendra Pratap Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A Hon'ble Chandra Dhari Singh,J.
Petitioners have approached this Court for quashing of the order dated 28.02.2019 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate-I, Court No.17, Raebareli in Complaint Case No.312 of 2014, under Sections 323, 354, 452, 504, 506 IPC, Police Station Mohanganj, District Amethi.
Submission of learned Counsel for petitioners is that the opposite party no.2 has filed an application under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. and the same was treated as complaint case. Thereafter statements under Sections 200 and 202 of Cr.P.C. have been recorded and petitioners have been summoned vide order dated 19.03.2014. Petitioners no.1 and 4 appeared and have been released on bail vide order dated 15.11.2014 and petitioners no.3 and 5 have been released on bail vide order dated 24.11.2014 and petitioner no.2 vide order dated 21.04.2015.
Learned Counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that in the present case, the examination-in-chief of PW 1 was recorded and the case was fixed for cross of PW 1 but on that date the petitioners are not appeared and, therefore, the impugned order has been passed issuing non-bailable warrant against the petitioners. Learned Counsel has again submitted that petitioners were not informed by their counsel about the date fixed and, therefore, they could not appeared.
Per contra, learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the submissions made by learned Counsel for petitioners and submitted that there is no illegality in the impugned order because the petitioners have violated the terms of the bail. Petitioners have not appeared before the learned court on several dates and they have not co-operate with the trial proceedings. He has further submitted that after lapse of one year, the impugned order has been challenged. There is no ground to invoke extraordinary jurisdiction in this case.
I have considered the submissions advanced by learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record.
After perusal of the impugned order dated 28.02.2019, the submissions advanced by learned Counsel for the parties and the averments made in the petition, I do not find any good reason to interfere in the impugned order.
Accordingly, the petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. is dismissed.
Order Date :- 4.2.2020 akverma