Dismissed

Rajesh Kumar @ Rajesh Singh v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC26 Nov 2024A482/10582/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of a non-bailable warrant issued under Section 138 N.I. Act. Finding insufficient record to determine the warrant's legality, the court dismissed the case but granted interim protection if the applicant moves for cancellation or bail within two weeks.

What did the court decide?

Application dismissed; interim relief granted conditionally on filing an application for bail/cancellation within two weeks.

Rajesh Kumar @ Rajesh Singh vs State of U.P. and Another — Cheque Dishonour | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:78378

¶2

Court No. - 14

¶3

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 10582 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Rajesh Kumar @ Rajesh Singh Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Om Prakash Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Ajai Kumar Srivastava-I,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A.-I for the State.

¶7

In view of the order which is proposed to be passed today, notice to opposite party No.2 is dispensed with.

¶8

The instant application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicant for quashing the 07.02.2019, passed in Criminal Case No.3864 of 2016 (Computerized No.0003445 of 2016, under Section 138 N.I. Act, Police Station P.G.I., District Lucknow, whereby the non-bailable warrant has been issued against the applicant.

¶9

Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the applicant in the present case is already on bail, however, due to his unintentional absence in the Court concerned the impugned non-bailable warrant has come to be issued against him. He has also submitted that the process of non-bailable warrant issued against the applicant is in contravention of law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Raghuvansh Dewanchand Bhasin vs. State of Maharashtra reported in (2012) 9 SCC 791 and in Inder Mohan Goswami and another vs. State of Uttaranchal and others reported in (2007) 12 SCC 1 .

¶10

Per contra, learned A.G.A. controverts the submissions of learned counsel for the applicant by submitting that from a bare perusal of impugned order dated 07.02.2019 passed by the learned trial Court it is apparent that the learned trial Court, due to the absence of the present applicant for more than five yeas without any just cause, has passed the impugned non-bailable warrant. Thus, he submits that no interference with the impugned order and proceedings is warranted at this stage and, therefore, the application is misconceived and is liable to be dismissed.

¶11

On the basis of the aforesaid, he submits that no interference with the impugned order and proceedings is warranted at this stage and, therefore, the application is misconceived and is liable to be dismissed.

¶12

Having heard the learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and upon perusal of record, it transpires that at this stage there is no material available on record to reveal as to how and under what circumstances, the impugned non-bailable warrants order dated 07.02.2019 came to be issued against the applicants. Therefore, the instant application seeking quashing of impugned non-bailable warrants order dated 07.02.2019 lacks merit which deserves to be dismissed.

¶13

However, it is needless to mention that in case, the applicant moves an application for cancellation of process issued against him/praying for bail within a period of two weeks from today, the learned trial court shall dispose of such application on its own merits expeditiously, in strict accordance with law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Raghuvansh Dewanchand Bhasin' case

¶14

(supra) and Inder Mohan Goswami's case (surpa) by keeping the process issued against the present applicant in abeyance for the aforesaid period only.

¶15

It is made clear that in case, the applicant fails to move such application before the Court concerned within the aforesaid period, the interim protection granted hereinabove shall automatically stand vacated without any further reference to this Court and the process, which has already been issued against the applicant, shall be given effect to in accordance with law.

¶16

With the aforesaid observations, the instant application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is finally disposed of .

¶17

(Ajai Kumar Srivastava-I, J.)

¶18

Order Date :- 26.11.2024 A.Dewal

¶19

Digitally signed by :- ASHISH DEWAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Rajesh Kumar @ Rajesh Singh v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajesh Kumar @ Rajesh Singh 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Mohd. Shanu and 8 Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Another

Mohd. Shaqeel Vs Vith Additional Civil Judge (Jd)/Judicial Magistrate Gonda and Another

Ajay Kumar Singh and Another Vs State of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Deependra Kumar Singh @ Deepak Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home U.P. Lko. and Another

Rajesh Kumar @ Rajesh Singh Vs State of U.P. and Another

Ram Sewak Rawat Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Govt. of U.P. Lko. and 8 Others