Court upheld the trial court's issuance of non-bailable warrant due to petitioner's negligence in complying with procedural requirements.

ORDER :

PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA , J.

1. On call, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Spl.P.P. for State are present.

2. The instant case is filed before this court for quashing of the order dated 25.03.2019 passed by Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Latehar in complaint case No. 07/2018 in which the learned trial court has cancelled the bail bond of the petitioner and order to issue N.B.W and further prays to quash the order dated 11.04.2019 and 16.05.2019 passed by learned trial court to issue process of Section 82 of Cr.P.C.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the complaint case was filed for the offence under Section 138 of N.I. Act by the opposite party no.2 as the petitioner had received an amount of Rs.4,50,000/- for selling truck and rest amount had to be paid at the time of transfer of ownership but due to some documentation, the ownership of the vehicle could not be transferred. Thereafter, as per agreement dated 22.07.2017 a cheque of Rs. 2,50,000/- was given by the petitioner which was dishonored due to insufficiency of funds and upon the notice, neither the amount was refunded nor the notice was replied. The petitioner has surrendered upon summons and the learned trail court has released the petitioner on bail by furnishing the bail bond of Rs.3,000/-. It is further argued that the petitioner has physically appeared before learned trial court on 04.10.2018 and was represented through his advocate at next date of appearing. On 25.03.2019, the representation of petitioner through advocate was not accepted and the learned trial court has cancelled the bail bond and issued NBW against him. On the next dates of hearing, learned trial court has issued process under Section 82 of Cr.P.C. It is next submitted that the learned trial court has failed to comply the terms and conditions before issuance of the non-bailable warrant against the petitioner.

4. The learned Spl.P.P. appearing for the State has opposed the contentions raised on behalf of the petitioner and submitted that the learned trial court has very wisely and aptly considered the matter and arrived at right conclusion. There is no interference required by this Hon’ble Court and this case may be dismissed.

5. Considering the aspects of the case, it is clear that there were latches and negligence on the part of the petitioner and the impugned order passed by the learned trial court for issuing NBW and process of 82 of Cr.P.C. required no interference. Thus, this Cr.M.P. being devoid of merits is dismissed.