Court No. - 71

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 40332 of 2022

Applicant :- Satish Singh @ Gogi And Others

Opposite Party :- State Of U.P And Another

Counsel for Applicant :- Kamla Prasad Tiwari

Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

Hon'ble Mrs. Sadhna Rani (Thakur),J.

Learned counsel for the applicants is present. He has prayed to

quash the NBW dated 14.11.2022 issued against him by the

Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pilibhit in Complaint Case No. 238

of 2001 (Prithviraj Vs. Ramlubhaya and others) under Sections

420, 468, 467, 471 IPC Police Station Kotwali, District Pilibhit.

It is prayed that in the proceedings under Section 229B of

UPZA & LR Act, the case of the applicants was decreed.

Against the decreetal order dated 19.11.2019 the applicant no. 1

filed an appeal before the Commissioner. After some time,

Complaint Case No. 238/9/2001 was also filed by the opposite

party no. 2 regarding same incident. As his complaint was

barred by Section 195 Cr.P.C., so an application under Section

482 Cr.P.C. was filed before this court, wherein this Cour was

pleased to pass the stay order staying the proceedings of the

complaint Case No. 238 of 2001. In the year 2013 this

application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. of the applicant was

dismissed in default and with the dismissal of this application

the interim order passed in favour of the applicants also came to

an end. Though, his restoration application is pending and the

applicants informed the trial court about their restoration

application but even then the NBWs have been issued against

the applicants. Hence, prayer is made to recall their NBWs

issued against the applicants.

Sri Mahendra Singh Yadav, learned Advocate, appeared on

behalf of Ram Kumari w/o Prathivraj - opposite party no. 2 and

submitted before the court that Prathviraj, the original

complainant has died in the year 2005 and in this regard his

application before the trial court in Complaint Case No. 238 of

2001 is pending. This fact that the opposite party no. 2 has died,

is admitted to the learned counsel for the applicants but even

then he has impleaded Prathviraj as opposite party no. 2 in the

present application.

The application against the dead person is not maintainable.

Otherwise also, this court is not a proper forum to recall or

quash the non bailable warrants issued against the applicants.

The applicants may appear before the proper forum and ask for

the relief there.

The vakalatnama of Sri Mahendra Singh Yadav, learned counsel

appearing on behalf of Ram Kumari w/o Prathviraj, is not on

record because Ram Kumari has not been made party here but it

is admitted that Prathviraj has died and Ram Kumari is his wife.

So, Sri Mahendra Singh Yadav, learned Advocate, is directed to

get his impleadment application decided at the earliest before

the trial court.

The present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. being not

maintainable is hereby rejected.

Order Date :- 27.1.2023

gp

Digitally signed by :-

GANESH PRAKASH

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad