Allahabad High Court
Juginder Singh @ Jaginder Singh And ... vs State Of U.P. And 2 Others on 9 December, 2019
Author: Manju Rani Chauhan
Bench: Manju Rani Chauhan
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Court No. - 76 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 43620 of 2019 Applicant :- Juginder Singh @ Jaginder Singh And Another Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Atul Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan,J.
1. Heard Sri Atul Pandey, learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State.
2. This application under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. has been filed with the prayer to quash the impugned order dated 06.09.2019 passed by the learned Special Judge, S.C./S.T. Act, Additional District Judge, Court no.2, Pilibhit as well as entire proceedings of Misc. Case No. 02 of 2005 (State vs. Juginder Singh @ Jaginder Singh and another), U/s 446 Cr.P.C., P.S.-Neuriya, District-Pilibhit, pending before learned Special Judge, S.C./S.T. Act, Additional District Judge, Court No.2, Pilibhit.
3. It has been contended by learned counsel for the applicants that the proceedings under Section 446 Cr.P.C. has been initiated against the applicants by the concerned court below for recovery of an amount of Rs. 50,000/- vide notice dated 09.03.2006 without realizing the fact that the applicants had given sureties for the accused Sony @ Manjinder Singh, who was convicted vide order dated 27.09.2006 and his bail bonds were also cancelled. Earlier, the accused Sony @ Manjinder was granted bail by this Court in Criminal Appeal No. 6874 of 2006 vide order dated 24.04.2015. Thereafter, the said accused had expired on 24.01.2017, a copy of death certificate has been appended as Annexure no.4 to the application wherein it has been mentioned that the accused Sony @ Manjinder died on 24.01.2017. Subsequently, a report dated 06.09.2019 has been submitted by the Superintendent of Police, Pilibhit before the concerned court below stating therein that recovery against the said applicants are still pending. On the said report, the order dated 06.09.2019 was passed by the concerned court below for recovery of an amount of Rs. 50,000/- from the applicants. Since the notices have been issued regularly to the applicants but they have not appeared before the concerned court below to inform that the accused Sony @ Manjinder had already expired on 24.01.2017. It has further been contended that since the accused Sony @ Manjinder had already expired, the concerned court below has not considered the said fact and the recovery notice has been issued, therefore, the impugned order dated 06.09.2019 passed by the concerned court below is not sustainable in the eyes of law.
4. In view of the above, the impugned order dated 06.09.2019 passed by the concerned court below is set aside. It is directed that the applicants may appear before the concerned court below within two weeks from the date of production of certified copy of this order for proceedings as required in accordance with law, so that, the court concerned may proceed and consider the fact that the accused, namely, Sony @ Manjinder, for whom the applicants had furnished sureties had already expired. Thereafter, the concerned court below is also directed to consider the same and pass afresh order within a period of two months, in accordance with law, from the date of production of a certified copy of this order.
5. With the aforesaid directions, the application is finally disposed of.
Order Date :- 9.12.2019 JK Yadav