This judgment rejected an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking to quash a non-bailable warrant. The court held that since no illegality was demonstrated in the trial court's order, and such warrant issuance is a routine order, inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. were not exercisable.
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. - 84
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 45025 of 2019
Applicant :- Nitin Baliyan Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Anr Counsel for Applicant :- Ajay Kumar Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Raj Beer Singh,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State.
The present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing the non-bailable warrant dated 27.09.2019 passed by Civil Judge (S.D.), F.T.C./ Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Baghpat in case no. 156/2017 arising out of case crime no. 231/2016, under Section 414 IPC, P.S. Binouli, district Baghpat.
It has been argued by learned counsel for the applicant that impugned order dated 27.09.2019 is against the provisions of law. It was submitted that in this case, applicant was on bail, but as he was not aware about the dates fixed by the trial court, he could not appear and thus, non-bailable warrants were issued against him. Learned counsel submitted that applicant may be granted sometime to appear before the court concerned.
Learned A.G.A. has submitted that applicant has knowledge about the proceedings of the case and that earlier, summons were issued against him, but when he did not appear, non-bailable warrants were issued against him. It was pointed out that non-bailable warrants are being continuously issued against the applicant since 24.03.2018.
Perusal of record shows that applicant has not appeared before the court concerned after filing of charge-sheet and that now, non-bailable warrants are being issued against him by the court below since 24.03.2018. Further, the court below has power to cancel the non-bailable warrants.
After hearing the learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. and after perusing the order impugned as well averments made in the present application, this Court is of the opinion, that learned counsel for the applicant could not point out any illegality or other infirmity in the order impugned, so as to warrant any interference by this Court in exercise of power conferred under 482 Cr.P.C. jurisdiction. It is well settled that inherent powers have to be exercised to prevent abuse of the process of court or to secure ends of justice. These powers cannot be exercised to interfere in routine orders of trial court.
Accordingly, the application lacks merit and is rejected.
Order Date :- 7.12.2019 Anand
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court should exercise its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash an order issued by the trial court
Whether the applicant demonstrated any illegality in the issuance of the impugned non-bailable warrant
Whether routine orders of trial courts should be interfered with under inherent powers
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Nitin Baliyan
Raj Beer Singh
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
