The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for recording satisfaction before issuing warrants, strict compliance with the provisions of Cr.P.C., and following the procedure for issuing summoning order, bailable or non-bailable warrants as per the case requirements.

JUDGMENT :

NEERAJ TIWARI, J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned GA for the State and Sri Rajeev Ratan Shukla, learned counsel for respondent No. 2.

2. By means of the present criminal appeal under Section 14A-1, the appellant is assailing the legality and validity of the order dated 19.08.2020 and charge sheet dated 06.07.2020 as well as entire proceeding of Case No. 88 of 2020, State v. Peer Mohammad, arising out of Case Crime No. 163 of 2019, under Sections-419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 504, 506 of IPC and Sections 3(2)5A and 3(1)S of SC/ST Act, Police Station-Pashchimi Sharira, District-Kaushambi, pending in the Court of Special Judge SC/ST Act, Kaushambi.

3. Learned counsel for appellant submitted that charge sheet was submitted on 19.08.2020 and on the very same date, after taking cognizance, straight away non bailable warrant has been issued against the appellant, which is bad in law. It is next submitted that while issuing non bailable warrants, it is required on the part of Magistrate concerned to record satisfaction, but in the present case, no satisfaction has been recorded as to why, while taking cognizance, non bailable warrant has been issued . It is further submitted that it is required on the part of Courts to first issue summoning order, thereafter bailable warrant, then a non-bailable warrant, if required. In support of his contention, he has placed reliance upon the judgments of this Court as well as Apex Court passed in the matters of Smt. Usha Jain and another vs. State of U.P. and another (Application U/S 482 No.19037 of 2018, Inder Mohan Goswami v. State of Uttaranchal, (2007) 12 SCC 1 and Satender Kumar Antil vs. Central Bureau of Investigation & Anr. (Misc. Application No. 1849 of 2021 in Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 5191 of 2021 decided on 11.07.2022.

4. Learned counsels for opposite parties have vehemently opposed the submissions made by learned counsel for appellant, but could not dispute the aforesaid facts as well as legal submissions.

5. I have considered the submissions advanced by counsels for parties and perused the records as well as judgments of this Court as well as Apex Court passed in Smt. Usha Jain (Supra)and Satender Kumar Antil (Supra).

6. This Court in the matter of Smt.Usha Jain (Supra) has dealt with in detail about the issuance of summons, bailable and non-bailable warrants. Relevant paragraph of the said judgment is quoted below:-

"Learned counsel for the applicants has drawn the attention of the Court to the order-sheet of the criminal complaint case and from very perusal of the order sheet, I find that learned Magistrate before issuing bailable warrant on 27.11.2017 has not recorded his satisfaction with regard to the service of the summons upon the accused applicants.

A large number of applications under Section 482 Cr.P.C. are being filed every day challenging the summoning order, bailable and non-bailable warrants issued more than 90 days before and even such applications are filed as belatedly as after 12 months from the date of summoning order and the only excuse taken to justify the delay is that summons were not served/ received and hence no knowledge.

It is very unfortunate state of affairs at the end of the Judicial Magistrate that before proceeding to issue bailable warrant, no satisfaction is recorded regarding effective service of summons against the accused persons, which should be a condition precedent for issuing bailable warrant. In the absence of any such satisfaction being recorded, the issuance of bailable and non-bailable warrant is not justified.

Under Chapter-III of the General Rules (Criminal) regarding service of process or register the processes as maintained his circular letter being C.L.No.42/98 dated: Allahabad: 20/8/1998 has been issued which reads as under:-

"The Hon'ble court has noticed that the present system of service of summons is not effectively working and service upon the witness/ accused persons are not being effected within the period