Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2024 Supreme(All) 1919

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
SAURABH LAVANIA, J.
Ajeet Kumar and 2 ors. - Applicants
Versus
State of U.P. and anr. - Opposite Parties
APPLICATION UNDER SECTION 482 NO. 6473 OF 2024 AND APPLICATION UNDER SECTION 482 NO. 6472 OF 2024.
Decided On : 25-07-2024

Advocates appeared:
For the Applicant : Rajeiu Kumar Tripathi.
For the Opposite Party : G.A.

Non-bailable warrants should only be issued after careful consideration of personal liberty and societal interests, avoiding them unless absolutely necessary.

Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code - Sections 323, 324, 504, 506 - Application under Section 482 - Quashing of non-bailable warrants - The court emphasized the need for careful scrutiny before issuing non-bailable warrants, balancing personal liberty against societal interests. The issuance of such warrants should be avoided unless absolutely necessary. (Paras 12-56)

(B) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 70(2) - The court noted the availability of alternative remedies under the Code, indicating that applicants should utilize these before seeking quashing of warrants. (Para 11)

Facts of the case:
The applicants sought to quash non-bailable warrants issued against them in two criminal cases stemming from FIRs lodged on the same day, involving allegations of assault and threats. The warrants had not been executed for years, raising concerns about the delay in proceedings. (Paras 4-6)

Findings of Court:
The court found that the trial court had not proceeded according to law and that the issuance of non-bailable warrants was not justified under the circumstances. (Paras 13-14)

Issues: The main issues included whether the trial court followed proper legal procedures in issuing non-bailable warrants and the appropriateness of the applicants' claims regarding their awareness of the proceedings. (Paras 10-12)

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that non-bailable warrants should only be issued after careful consideration of the circumstances, emphasizing the importance of personal liberty and the necessity of exhausting less severe measures first. (Paras 50-56)

Result: Applications disposed of in terms provided.

JUDGMENT

Saurabh Lavania, J.

Heard Dr. L.P. Mishra, learned Senior Member of the Bar assisted by Sri. Rajeiu Kumar Tripathi, Advocate alongwith Sri. Shashi Kant Dixit, learned counsel for the applicants, learned AGA for the State of U.P. and Sri. Pawan Kumar Mishra, Advocate, who has filed Vakalatnama on behalf of the opposite party No. 2 in the Court today, which is taken on record.

2. The main relief sought in Application under Section 482 No. 6473 of 2024 is quoted hereunder:-

"Wherefore, it is most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may very graciously be pleased to set aside and quash the impugned order dated 10.05.2024, passed by learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division) / Judicial Magistrate, Bahraich in Case No. 51/2017 (Old Case No. 293/2002) and order dated 12.07.2024, passed by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bahraich pertaining to Crime No. 146 of 2001, under Sections 323, 324, 504, 506 Indian Penal Code, Police Station Gilaula, District Shravasti (Now District Bahraich), as contained in Annexure No. 1 to this application."

3. The main relief sought in Application under Section 482 No. 6472 of 2024 is quoted hereunder:-

"Wherefore, it is most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may very graciously be pleased to set aside and quash the impugned order dated 03.10.2008, passed by learned Second Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division) / Judicial Magistrate, Bahraich in Case No. 386/2006 (Old Case No. 294/2002) and all other consequential orders so far as it relates to issuance of Non Bailable Warrants against the applicants as witnesses of the case pertaining to Case Crime No. 146A of 2001, under Section 323, 325, 504, 506 Indian Penal Code, P.S. Gilaula, District Shravasti Now P.S. Payagpur, District Bahraich, as contained in Annexure No. 1 to this application."

4. Facts, in brief, which are relevant for disposal of the present applications are to the effect that an FIR was lodged by the opposite party No. 2 on 08.09.2001 as Case Crime No. 146 of 2001 at about 19.30 hours at Police Station- Gilaula, District- Shravasti now Police Station- Payagpur, District- Bahraich, under Sections 323, 324, 504, 506 IPC.

5. Another FIR was lodged from the side of the applicants as Case Crime No. 146A of 2001 on the same day i.e. 08.09.2001 under Sections 323, 325, 504, 506 IPC at 19.45 hours at the same police station. The Investigating Officer thereafter on completion of investigation prepared the charge sheets in both the cases on 03.10.2001.

6. Relevant facts related to Criminal Case No. 51/2017 (Old Case No. 293/2002), Case Crime No. 146 of 2001, which is the subject matter of the APPLICATION under Section 482 No. 6473 of 2024, are as under:-

(i) In Criminal Case No. 51/2017 (Old Case No. 293/2002), Case Crime No. 146 of 2001, on 02.03.2002, the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Shravasti took cognizance in the matter and directed to issue summons to the accused/applicants fixing 20.05.2002.

(ii) On 20.05.2002, another date was fixed directing the office to issue summons for appearance of accused/applicants fixing 03.07.2002.

(iii) On 03.07.2002, the case was adjourned fixing 26.08.2002 for preparation of copy of charge sheet and on this date, Vinay Kumar, Buddheswhar and Ajeet put their signature.

(iv) Thereafter, before the Magistrate/trial court various dates were fixed i.e. 25.09.2002, 16.11.2002, 06.01.2003, 26.02.2003, 05.04.2003, 06.05.2003, 13.06.2003, 15.07.2003, 16.08.2003, 26.09.2003, 11.11.2003, 19.12.2003, 04.02.2004, 24.03.2004, 24.05.2004, 02.07.2004, 16.08.2004. On these dates, the accused/applicants were present either personally or through their counsel.

(v) On 16.08.2004, the accused/applicants were present through their counsel and State counsel sought adjournment on the ground of non-availability of prosecution witnesses. Accordingly, the case was adjourned to 23.09.2004. (vi) It would be apt to indicate here that till 23.09.2004, the case was proceeding in the court of Chief J