Allowed

Vindhyavasini Mishra v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC4 Jul 2018A482/18628/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed an application under S. 482 Cr.P.C. to quash a revisional court order that had stayed a non-bailable warrant. The bench held that the stay was impermissible as the warrant order was interlocutory and the challenge to the charge sheet had already been rejected.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order of the revisional court setting aside the non-bailable warrant and staying proceedings is set aside. The instant application is allowed and the matter is remitted.

Vindhyavasini Mishra Vs State of U.P. and Another — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 49 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 18628 of 2018 Applicant :- Vindhyavasini Mishra Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Sachida Nand Tiwari Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶2

Hon'ble Saumitra Dayal Singh,J.

¶3

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

¶4

The present 482 Cr.P.C. application has been filed to quash the entire proceeding of Criminal Revision No.111 of 2018, arising out of Case Crime No. 271 of 2017, under Sections- 323, 504, 452, 427, 435 I.P.C., Police Station- Meja, District- Allahabad, pending in the court of Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Court No. 6, Allahabad including the order dated 16.04.2018 passed by In-charge District & Sessions Judge, Court No.14, Allahabad.

¶5

Solitary submission advanced by learned counsel for the applicant is that the learned revisional court has completely erred and actedng without jurisdiction in entertaining the revision filed against issuance of non bailable warrant against the opposite party no.2. Not only the revisional court has entertained the revision but had also stayed the operation of the non bailable warrant dated 16.04.2018.

¶6

It is further contended that against the submission of charge sheet dated 21.08.2017 in the same criminal case, the opposite party no.2 and three others had approached this Court by means of application U/s 482 Cr.P.C. No. 7132 of 2018, which was dismissed vide order dated 07.03.2018 with the following observation:

¶7

"The contention of learned counsel for the applicants is that the present incident took place when there was marriage of the daughter of the applicant no.3. It has been further submitted that there are cross reports of the incident and both sides have received injuries. It has been next submitted that no offence against the applicants is disclosed and the present prosecution has been instituted with a malafide intention for the purposes of harassment. He pointed out certain documents and statements in support of his contention.

¶8

From the perusal of the material on record and looking into the facts of the case at this stage it cannot be said that no offence is made out against the applicants. All the submissions made at the bar relate to the disputed questions of fact, which cannot be adjudicated upon by this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. At this stage only prima facie case is to be seen 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,

¶9

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 (Para-10) 2005 SCC (Cr.) 283 .

¶10

The prayer for quashing the proceedings of the aforesaid case based on the charge-sheet is refused.

¶11

The application lacks merit and is accordingly, dismissed."

¶12

Since the opposite party no.2 did not take benefit of the observation made in the aforesaid order, the learned trial court issued non bailable warrant against him to secure his attendance in the pending case.

¶13

It is in such circumstance the opposite party no.2 has filed a Criminal Revision No. 111 of 2018, wherein the impugned order dated 16.04.2018 has been passed.

¶14

Learned counsel for the applicant thus submits that in the first place the revision was not maintainable against purely interlocutory order of issuance of non bailable warrant and on the other hand in view of the earlier 482 Cr.P.C. application having been rejected by this Court against submission of charge sheet, it was even otherwise wholly improper on part of learned court below to have entertained the revision and accordingly stayed the non bailable warrant, which has practically stayed the proceedings before the trial court.

¶15

Learned AGA on the other hand could not rely on any contrary position on law.

¶16

The submission of learned counsel for the applicant merits acceptance, inasmuch as the order of issuance of non bailable warrant is wholly interlocutory and further stay order has been passed upon rejection of the challenge raised by the opposite party no.2 to the charge sheet. The non bailable warrant appears to have become necessary to be issued in view of the continued conduct of the opposite party no.2 in not appearing before the learned court below.

¶17

Thus, the order passed by the revisional court cannot be sustained and it is hereby set aside. The instant application is allowed . The matter is remitted to the revisional court to redecide the matter afresh. The aforesaid exercise may be completed as expeditiously as possible, necessarily within a period of three weeks from the date of production of a certified copy of this order.

¶18

Order Date :- 4.7.2018 Lbm/-

Vindhyavasini Mishra v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vindhyavasini Mishra v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mumtaz and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Ravi Vs State of U.P. and Another

Gopi Nath Tiwari and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another

Hanumant Bahadur Pal Alias Hanumant Pratap Singh Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Jai Kumar Sharma Vs State of U.P. and Another

Gulab Singh @Nitin Vs State of Up and Another