Point of Law: Where the matter remains pending for longer period, the order of stay will stand vacated on expiry of six months, unless extension is granted by a speaking order showing extraordinary situation where continuing stay was to be preferred to the final disposal of trial by the trial court.

JUDGMENT :

SANGEETA CHANDRA, J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned AGA for the State.

2. This petition has been filed with the following main prayer:

“Wherefore, it is most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to set-aside the impugned order dated 16.09.2021 and 28.10.2021 passed by IIIrd Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ambedkar Nagar in S.T. No. 186/2011 (State vs. Sarvesh Kumar Tiware), with all consequential benefits contained as Annexure No. 1 and 2 respectively to the present petition.”

3. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that earlier a Criminal Misc. Case No. 15 of 2016 under Section 482 Cr.P.C. (Sarvesh Kumar Tiware vs. State of U.P. and Others) was filed by the petitioner challenging the charge-sheet in which this Court had been pleased to stay the proceedings in the Sessions Trial No. 186 of 2011 (State vs. Sarvesh Kumar Tiware) by its order dated 17.08.2021, which is still operative and in-force. During the pendency of the petition and the interim order therein, the trial court had issued non-bailable warrants against the petitioner on 16.09.2021 giving rise to afresh cause of action to file the present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

4. Learned AGA for the State has raised the preliminary objection regarding the maintainability of the petition as according to him the petitioner's case no. 5131 of 2016 is still pending before this Court and a second petition by the same petitioner with regard to the same Sessions Trial only challenging the non-bailable warrant issued by the learned trial court is not maintainable.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has pointed out the order sheet annexed as annexure-9 to the petition and he says that he has never been issued any summon, warrant earlier and a wrong observation has been made by the learned trial court in its order dated 16.09.2021 that he has been granted several opportunities to place a current status of the petition under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. bearing Petition No. 5131 of 2016.

6. The counsel for the petitioner has stated that the non-bailable warrant has been issued against the petitioner without application of mind to the observations made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the Inder Mohan Goswami and Another vs. State of Uttranchal and Others, (2007) 12 SCC 1, where the Court had observed in paragraph nos. 50 to 53 that non-bailable warrants would be issued to bring a person to Court only when summons and bailable warrants would be unlikely to have the desired result. If the Court is of the opinion that the summons will suffice in getting the appearance of the accused in the Court, the summons or bailable warrants should be preferred.

7. This Court has carefully perused the order sheet a typed copy of which has been filed at annexure-9 to the petition. It appears that on 24.01.2020 when the case was called out, the accused were directed to place the current status regarding the stay order granted by the High Court by the next fixed. The matter was fixed to be taken on 25.02.2020.

8. On 25.02.2020, again, the accused were directed to place a current status regarding the stay order granted by the High Court and the matter was fixed for 25.03.2020. The case was again taken up on 25.03.2020 where noting the absence of the accused, the court had ordered the accused to present the status of stay in the proceedings before the High Court by the next date of listing as a last opportunity. The case was fixed on 03.08.2021, when again the accused remain absent and the learned trial court observed that because of the petition remaining pending in the High Court, the proceedings had remained stayed and the accused was directed to place the current status of the stay order granted earlier by the next date. The matter was fixed again for hearing on 20.08.2021. On 20.08.2021, there was a public holiday declared due to Moharam. The case was taken up on 21.08.2021, when accused remained absent. Again