Dismissed

Smt. Manju and Another v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC24 Sept 2019A482/33190/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Criminal Misc. Application filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash an order issuing a non-bailable warrant and stay proceedings. The bench refused to interfere, finding no infirmity in the order. However, the applicants were given thirty days to surrender and apply for bail, during which the warrant was stayed.

What did the court decide?

Prayer to quash order and stay proceedings is refused. N.B.W. operation stayed for thirty days pending surrender and bail application.

Smt. Manju and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another — Quashing and FIR | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 73

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 33190 of 2019

¶3

Applicant :- Smt. Manju And Another Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Om Prakash Shukla Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Om Prakash-VII,J.

¶5

The present application has been filed by the applicants under Section 482 Cr.P.C. with the prayer to quash the order dated 17.12.2018 issuing non-bailable warrant in case no. 1301 of 2017 (Lallan Prasad Vs. Manju and others), under Sections 323, 504, 506, 427 IPC, Police Station Manduwadih, District - Varanasi pending in the court of Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 2, Varanasi. Further prayer has been made to stay the further proceedings of the aforesaid case.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the applicants and the learned AGA appearing for the State.

¶7

A perusal of the record reveals that the summoning order was passed after recording the statement under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. of the complainant as well as the witnesses. Nonbailable warrant was issued when the applicants did not appear before the court concerned despite service of summon. Issuance of non-bailable warrant is within the jurisdiction of the court concerned.

¶8

Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and having considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties, I am of the view that no case is made out to interfere with the impugned order. There is no infirmity or illegality in the said order. The prayer made in the application is refused.

¶9

However, it is observed that in case the applicants surrender and apply for bail within thirty days from today, the same shall be considered and decided in view of the settled law. For a period of thirty days from today, effect and operation of the N.B.W. shall remain in abeyance.

¶10

It is made clear that no further time shall be allowed to the applicants to surrender before the court concerned.

¶11

With the above observations, the application stands disposed of.

¶12

Order Date :- 24.9.2019

¶13

Sachdeva

Smt. Manju and Another v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Manju and Another 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

Smt. Arbunnisha and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another

Mohd. Javed Ahmad and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another

Mr. Seriful Islam and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another

Santosh Singh and 2 Ors. Vs State of U.P. and Another

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

B.K. Bhartiya and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another