SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Suresh Kumar Sharma vs State Of U.P.And Another on 11 December, 2019


?Court No. – 85

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. – 45823 of 2019

Applicant :- Suresh Kumar Sharma

Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.And Another

Counsel for Applicant :- Avnish Kumar Srivastava

Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

Hon’ble Narendra Kumar Johari,J.

Heard learned counsel for the applicant as well as learned A.G.A for the State and perused the record.

The present application U/s 482 SectionCr.P.C. has been filed with a prayer to quash the order dated 19.11.2018 whereby the learned Magistrate issued a non-bailable warrant against the applicant in case no.858 of 2016 arising out case crime no.624 of 2016 under Section 406 I.P.C., Police Station-Sihani Gate, District-Ghaziabad pending before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.3, Ghaziabad.

Learned A.G.A. appearing for the State opposed the prayer.

Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, after perusing the entire record and having considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties, I am of the view that in the light of the law laid down by Supreme Court in cases of R.P.Kapur Vs. State of Punjab, A.I.R. 1960 S.C. 866, State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal, 1992 SCC (Cr.) 426, State of Bihar Vs. P.P.Sharma, 1992 SCC (Cr.) 192 and lastly Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. Vs. Mohd.Saraful Haq and another (10) 2005 SCC (Crl.) 283. No case is made out to interfere with the impugned order. The disputed defence of the accused cannot be considered at this stage. The impugned order does not suffer from any infirmity or illegality.

In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, I do not find any ground to quash the entire proceeding of the aforementioned case as well as charge-sheet dated 10.11.2016, therefore, the prayer for quashing the same is hereby refused.

Non-bailable warrant was issued when the applicant did not appear before the court concerned despite service of summon. Issuance of non-bailable warrant is within the jurisdiction of the court concerned.

Learned counsel for the applicant further contended for limited protection and submitted that the reasons on account of which the applicants failed to appear before the trial court were beyond their control and the applicant has every intention to appear before the court concerned and participate in the proceedings of the trial.

However, considering the request, if applicant surrenders before the court below within 30 days from today and apply for bail, the same shall be considered and decided by the court concerned expeditiously according to law. For a period of thirty days from today, effect and operation of non-bailable warrant issued against the applicant shall be kept in abeyance.

In case of default, the Court below will be at liberty to take all coercive steps against the applicant for ensuring their appearance.

With the aforesaid observations, the application is disposed of.

Order Date :- 11.12.2019

SK Goswami



Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Copyright © 2021 SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Free Legal Help, Just WhatsApp Away

MyNation HELP line

We are Not Lawyers, but No Lawyer will give you Advice like We do

Please read Group Rules – CLICK HERE, If You agree then Please Register CLICK HERE and after registration  JOIN WELCOME GROUP HERE

We handle Women Centric biased laws like False Sectioin 498A IPC, Domestic Violence(DV ACT), Divorce, Maintenance, Alimony, Child Custody, HMA 24, 125 CrPc, 307, 312, 313, 323, 354, 376, 377, 406, 420, 497, 506, 509; TEP, RTI and many more…

MyNation FoundationMyNation FoundationMyNation Foundation