Dismissed

Ritesh Tewari v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC23 Aug 2018A482/26772/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Application under Section 482 CrPC to quash an order issuing a non-bailable warrant and stay trial proceedings was dismissed. The bench held that objections regarding limitation and illegality must be raised in the pending revision before the Sessions Judge, and this Court lacks jurisdiction to stay trial proceedings.

What did the court decide?

No coercive action for 45 days from the date of judgment; directed applicant to approach trial court for bail.

Ritesh Tewari Vs State of U.P. and Another — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 13

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 26772 of 2018

¶3

Applicant :- Ritesh Tewari Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- A.K. Mishra,Sati Shanker Tripathi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Umesh Chandra Tripathi,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State of U.P. in opposition and perused the record.

¶6

This application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short 'Code') has been filed on behalf of the applicant with a prayer to quash the order dated 05.06.2018, whereby non-bailable warrant was issued against the applicant.

¶7

Learned counsel for the applicant contended that the applicant - Ritesh Tiwari has been summoned for the offence punishable under Section 406 and 506(1) of the Indian Penal Code (in short 'IPC') on 27.04.2016 by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 5, Ghaziabad. Against the impugned summoning order, the applicant preferred a criminal revision before Sessions Judge, Ghaziabad with an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 to condone the delay in filing the revision. The aforesaid revision is pending before the Sessions Judge. In between, learned Magistrate has passed the impugned order of issuing non-bailable warrant against the applicant. He further prays that till the decision of revision, proceedings of trial court be stayed.

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicant further contended that cognizance of offence punishable under Section 406 of IPC has been taken against the applicant after period of limitation, which is not sustainable in the eyes of law.

¶9

Per contra, learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer made and arguments thereof advanced by learned counsel for the applicant contended that there is no illegality in the impugned order of issuing non-bailable warrant by the court below.

¶10

Learned counsel for the applicant may raise his objection before the appropriate forum, i.e. revisional court. Moreover, on the same fact, the applicant cannot file both revision before the court below and application under Section 482 of the Code before this Court.

¶11

From the perusal of record, it reveals that the proceedings has not been stayed by revisional court. As such, the Magistrate has not committed any error in passing the impugned order. This Court has no jurisdiction to pass order to stay the proceedings of the court below.

¶12

In view of above, the prayer for quashing the impugned order passed by the Magistrate and staying the proceedings thereof is refused.

¶13

However, the applicant may appear before the court below and pray for bail. If he does so, his bail application shall be heard and decided most expeditiously, strictly in accordance with law.

¶14

For a period of 45 days from today, no coercive action shall be taken against the applicant.

¶15

With the aforesaid observations/directions, the instant application stands disposed of.

¶16

Order Date :- 23.8.2018 I. Batabyal

Ritesh Tewari v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ritesh Tewari 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sumit Kumar and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Danish and 5 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Sanjeev Shambhoolal Vs State of Up and 2 Others

Tarachandra Vs State of Up and Anotehr

State of U.P. Vs Afgan

State of U.P. Vs Abdul Hai S/O Abdul Hameed