Dismissed

Narain Raj v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC3 Aug 2023A227/7881/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged a warrant issuance order via Article 227 petition. Court dismissed the petition for lack of merit, noting the petitioner failed to join investigation after notices, citing Section 41A and 161 Cr.P.C., and reserved liberty to approach competent courts.

What did the court decide?

The petition was dismissed with liberty to approach the Court of competent jurisdiction.

Narain Raj Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:155739

¶2

Court No. - 47

¶3

Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 7881 of 2023 Petitioner :- Narain Raj Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Himanshu Mishra Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Vinod Diwakar,J.

¶5

Aggrieved by the order dated 15.04.2023 passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gorakhpur, in Case Crime No. 325of 2022, under Section 406, 420 IPC registered at P.S. Kotwali, District Gorakhpur, the petitioner has preferred the instant petition for set aside the impugned order.

¶6

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Investigating Officer has erroneously moved an application for issuance of a non-bailable warrant against the petitioner in the instant FIR and got issued the non-bailable warrant.

¶7

Per contra, learned AGA invited the attention of the Court to the notice dated 02.02.2023 issued under section 41A Cr.P.C. to the petitioner for joining the investigation on 9.2.2023, but the petitioner has shown no inclination to join the investigation. The Investigating Officer had no recourse available under the Cr.P.C., except to obtain a non-bailable warrant against the petitioner.

¶8

There seems to be a force in the submission of learned AGA that the Investigating Officer has twice issued notice to the petitioner for recording his statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C., but the petitioner has shown no inclination to join the investigation.

¶9

The counsel has shown no good ground in favour of the petitioner to invite the jurisdiction under Section 227 of Cr.P.C., in the facts of the case. Moreover, the petitioner has an efficacious remedy to approach the competent Court to redress his grievances.

¶10

The instant petition lacks merit and is dismissed with the liberty to the petitioner to approach the Court of having competent jurisdiction to redress his grievances.

¶11

Order Date :- 3.8.2023 Ujjawal

¶12

Digitally signed by :- UJJAWAL PARJAPATI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Narain Raj v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Narain Raj v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

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

Nisha Singh Vs Rajesh Kumar Singh

Saurabh Sharma Vs State of U.P.

Aman Nishad Vs State of U.P.

Sonu Vs State of U.P. and Another

Om Prakash Gautam Vs State of U.P. and Another

Junaid Vs State Of U. P. and another