Disposed

Surendra Kumar Dhingra v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC8 Jan 2018A482/43200/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court disposed of an application seeking quashing of a non-bailable warrant due to alleged non-service of summons. Court directed trial court to consider summons service during bail recall proceedings and stayed coercive action.

What did the court decide?

No coercive action against applicant till 23.01.2018; directs trial court to consider summons service during bail recall.

Surendra Kumar Dhingra Vs State of U.P. and Another — Writ and Judicial Review | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 14

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 43200 of 2017

¶3

Applicant :- Surendra Kumar Dhingra Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Uma Nath Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Umesh Chandra Tripathi,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Uma Nath Pandey, learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶6

This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed with a prayer to quash the order dated 27.10.2017 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gautam Buddh Nagar in Case No. 1219 of 2017 (State v. Surendra Kumar) arising out of charge-sheet filed in Case Crime No. 591 of 1991 under Section 279, 304 I.P.C., Police Station - Sector 20, Nodia, District - Ghaziabad, on the ground that no summon has been served on the applicant and by the impugned order, non-bailable warrant and process under Section 82 and 83. Cr.P.C. has been issued against him.

¶7

It is contended by learned counsel for the applicant no notice was served on the applicant, even then the trial court has issued non-bailable warrant and process under Section 82 and 83 Cr.P.C., which is illegal.

¶8

Per contra, learned A.G.A. opposed the argument advanced by learned counsel for the applicant and contended that there is no illegality in the impugned order passed by learned C.J.M., Gautam Buddh Nagar.

¶9

Sri Naveen Bhati, deponent on behalf of the applicant, in his affidavit, stated that no summon has been served on the applicant. The applicant has not submitted complete order sheet, therefore, it is not possible for this Court to adjudicate whether summon has been served on the applicant or not. However, from the perusal of order sheet dated 02.03.2017, 19.04.2017, 13.04.2017, 13.09.2017, 22.09.2017 and 27.10.2017, it is evident that there is no police report which shows that the applicant has absconded or is concealing himself so that N.B.W. issued against him by the court cannot be executed.

¶10

Remedy is available to the applicant to appear before the

¶11

court concerned and submit application to recall the order or to apply for bail. On this ground, the court is not inclined to interfere in the matter at this stage. However, if the applicant submits an application to recall the order or to apply for bail, his recall application/bail application shall be decided expeditiously, preferably on the same day.

¶12

If summon has not been served on the applicant, then it shall be considered by the trial court at the time of deciding the recall application/bail application of the applicant.

¶13

Till 23.01.2018, no coercive action shall be taken against the applicant.

¶14

With the aforesaid directions, the instant application is finally disposed of.

¶15

Order Date :- 8.1.2018 I. Batabyal

Surendra Kumar Dhingra v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Surendra Kumar Dhingra 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

Ravindra Yadav Vs State of U.P. and Another

Sugreev Vs State of U.P. and Another

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

Zahid and 4 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Mohan Singh and Others Vs State of U.P.

Jai Singh @ Bade Vs State of U.P.