Sanjay Bhakta Mathema vs Vipin Kumar Sharma

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

DELHI HIGH COURT
MANOJ KUMAR OHRI
Sanjay Bhakta Mathema – Appellant
Versus
Vipin Kumar Sharma – Respondent

Table of Content
1. filing of petitions against nbws. (Para 1)
2. petitioners' unintentional absence and undertakings. (Para 2 , 3)
3. submissions regarding personal appearance exemption. (Para 4 , 5 , 6)
4. trial court's justification for nbws issuance. (Para 7)
5. judicial discretion in issuing non-bailable warrants. (Para 8 , 9)
6. factors weighing against issuing nbws. (Para 10 , 11)
7. balancing personal liberty with societal interests. (Para 12 , 13)
8. set aside nbws upon payment of costs. (Para 14)
9. petitioners bound by undertakings. (Para 15 , 16)

JUDGMENT

Manoj Kumar Ohri, J. (ORAL)--The present petitions have been filed under Section 401 read with Section 482 Cr.P.C. on behalf of the petitioners assailing the order dated 27.11.2021 passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, N.I. Act (East), Karkardooma Courts, Delhi in Complaint Case No. 417/2019 filed under Section 138 read with Section 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, whereby non-bailable warrants (hereinafter, referred to as 'NBWs') were issued against them.

2. Mr. Shatadru Chakraborty, learned counsel for the petitioners, submits that the absence of the petitioners before the Trial Court was unintentional

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

DELHI HIGH COURTMANOJ KUMAR OHRISanjay Bhakta Mathema – AppellantVersusVipin Kumar Sharma – Respondent

DELHI HIGH COURT
MANOJ KUMAR OHRI
Sanjay Bhakta Mathema – Appellant
Versus
Vipin Kumar Sharma – Respondent