This order refuses to quash the trial court's non-bailable warrant in a domestic dispute case despite the applicants' claim of harassment.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Court No. - 3 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 22495 of 2019 Applicant :- Mumtaz Ahmad And 7 Others Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Tabassum Hashmi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Pradeep Kumar Srivastava,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicants and learned A.G.A. for the State.
Learned counsel for the applicants has submitted that before trial court complaint case no. 3322 of 2013 (Noorjaha Vs. Mumtaz Ahmad and others), under Section 498-A, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C and 3/4 D.P.Act, P.S. Vindhyachal, District Mirzapur is pending in which learned trial court has issued a non-bailable warrant on 14.05.2019. Against that order of non-bailable warrant, this application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been given.
It appears that impugned order of non-bailable warrant has been issued by the learned trial court and there is nothing on record to show that against that order of non-bailable warrant, any application has been given from the side of the applicants.
The submission of learned counsel for the applicants is that the opposite party no. 2 is so furious that the applicants are not able to attend the Court and therefore application for cancellation of non-bailable warrant could not be given. In support of this case an N.C.R. has also been attached with this application along with a medical report of the applicants.
Learned A.G.A has vehemently opposed the prayer of quashing of non-bailable warrant and has submitted that effective remedy is available before the learned trial court.
Considered the submission of both the sides. I do not find any valid reason for interference in the impugned order therefore the request for quashing the same is refused.
The application is disposed of with observation that if an application for cancellation of non-bailable warrant is given by the applicants before the learned trial court, the same shall be considered sympathetically and disposed of expeditiously according to law.
With the aforesaid direction the application is disposed of.
Order Date :- 10.6.2019///Ujjawal
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court can interfere with the issuance of a non-bailable warrant by the trial court in a Section 498-A case.
Whether the fear and threats caused by the opposite party justify the quashing of the non-bailable warrant.
3 provisions across 3 enactments
Mumtaz Ahmad and 7 Others
State of U.P.
Pradeep Kumar Srivastava
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
