Back
HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
K.N.Ojha
AMAR PAL
Versus
STATE OF U P
Decided On : 20 November 2003
Criminal Revision No. 429 of 2003
Non-bailable Warrant - Criminal Procedure - The court held that while a summons could have been issued against the accused, the direct issuance of a non-bailable warrant was in violation of the relevant provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code. The court emphasized that the issuance of a warrant should be based on the likelihood of non-compliance with a summons or the avoidance of appearance, and in this case, it was in the interest of justice to issue summons instead of a non-bailable warrant.
Fact of the Case:
The complainant filed an application under Section 156 (3) Cr. P. C. against the accused. The Chief Judicial Magistrate directed for investigation, and after perusing the case diary, took cognizance of the offence and issued non-bailable warrants against the accused.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the direct issuance of non-bailable warrants was in violation of the relevant provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code and emphasized that summons should have been issued instead.
Issues: The main issue was the validity of the issuance of non-bailable warrants against the accused based on the facts and evidence presented.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that the issuance of a warrant should be based on the likelihood of non-compliance with a summons or the avoidance of appearance, and in this case, it was in the interest of justice to issue summons instead of a non-bailable warrant.
Final Decision: The impugned order was modified to the extent that the accused were directed to appear in the court and participate in the proceedings, and their bail applications, if any, were to be decided expeditiously in accordance with the law.
Instant revision has been preferred against the order dated 23-11-2002 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Farrukhabad, in Case No. 396/11 of 2001 (State v. Nathoo Lal) by which non-bailable warrant has been issued against the revisionists Amar Pal and Pappu, sons of Shyam Lal, Maya Devi widow of Shyam Lal, Kamla Devi wife of Veer Pal, Sobaran son of Rewati, Sukhpal Singh son of Sobran Singh, Munni Devi wife of Sukhpal Singh, and Satendra Singh son of Sobran Singh for being arrested and produced before the Court so that they may face trial in a case under Sections 498-A, 304-B, 201 and 120-B I. P. C.
2. Heard Sri Anees Ahmad, learned Counsel for the revisionist and Sri Shekhar Yadav and Sri N. K. Dwivedi, learned AGA and have gone through the impugned order and the papers filed alongwith the revision.
3. The complainant Natthu Lal moved an application under Section 156 (3) Cr. P. C. against the revisionists. The Chief Judicial Magistrate has directed for investigation in the case. Investigation was done and final report was submitted, on which notice was issued to the complainant. After hearing the learned Counsel for the complainant the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate recorded statement of the complainant under Section 200 Cr. P. C. and of witnesses Subedar and Purushottam under Section 202 Cr. P. C. , perused the case diary and took cognizance of the offence and issued non-bailable warrant against the revisionist. Aggrieved there from instant revision has been preferred.
4. Section 204 of Cr. P. C. contemplates that if in the opinion of the Magistrate taking cognizance of an offence there is sufficient ground for proceeding, and the case appears to be a warrant case, he may issue a warrant, or if he thinks fit, a summons, for causing the accused to be brought or to appear at a certain time before such Magistrate of if he has no jurisdiction himself some other Magistrate having jurisdiction.
5. The learned Counsel for the revisionists submits that in this case summons could be issued against the revisionists but non- bailable warrant was directly issued and thus the impugned orders is in violation of Section 204 (b) of Cr. P. C. Reliance has been also placed on Section 87 of Cr. P. C. , which contemplates that:
"87. Issue of warrant in lieu of, or in addition to, summons.-A Court may, in any case in which it is empowered by this Code to issue a summons for the appearance of any person, issue, after recording its reasons in writing, a warrant for his arrest -
(a) if, either before the issue of such summons, or after the issue of the same but before the time fixed for his appearance, the Court sees reason to believe that he has absconded or will not obey the summons; or
(b) if at such time he fails to appear and the summons is proved to have been duly served in time to admit of his appearing in accordance therewith and no reasonable excuse is offered for such failure. "
6. Thus, a perusal of Sections 87 and 204 Cr. P. C. shows that if in a case summons can be issued normally, it should be issued, but if Court sees reason to believe that issue of summons will ordinarily be not complied with or appearance of the accused before the Court will be avoided and there are reasons for this, warrant may be issued.
7. In instant case FIR was not registered at the police station. A complaint was moved under Section 156 (3) Cr. P. C. After investigation final report was submitted. The learned Magistrate perused the case diary and did not find sufficient evidence in the case diary for taking cognizance against the accused revisionists. Therefore, he proceeded with the inquiry, recorded statements under Sections 200 and 202 Cr. P. C. thereafter arrived at the conclusion that prima-facie case is made out against the revisionist and warrant was issued.
8. In this case amongst the revisionists, who have been summoned as accused by issuing non-bailable warrant, are three ladies of the same family and all the eight revisi
AI
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
