Amrita Dubey v. State of U.P. and Another

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:198245

Court No. - 75

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 26738 of 2024

Applicant :- Amrita Dubey Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Syed Azeem Uddin Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

Hon'ble Raj Beer Singh,J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material brought on record.

1. This application under Section - 482 Cr.P.C. has been preferred against order dated 20.09.2023, passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate-9, Kanpur Nagar, in Complaint Case No. 105 of 2016 (Vipin Kumar Vs. Amrita Dubey), under Section - 156 (3) Cr.P.C., District - Harbans Mohal, District - Kanpur Nagar, whereby the non bailable warrants and process under Section - 82 Cr.P.C. has been issued against applicant.

1. It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that in the aforesaid case, applicant was granted bail vide order dated 06.05.2017 and thereafter she was regularly appearing before the trial court. After COVID-19 pandemic period, on 30.04.2022 applicant could not appear before the trial court, as she was not aware about that date and the trial court has issued non bailable warrants against her without issuing any summon or bailable warrants. Thereafter, vide impugned order dated 20.09.2023 fresh non bailable warrants and process under Section - 82 Cr.P.C. has been issued against applicant. It has been pointed out that the learned trial court has not recorded any satisfaction for issuance of process under Section - 82 Cr.P.C.. The trial court has merely mentioned that applicant is absent and thus she be summoned through non bailable warrants and process under Section - 82 Cr.P.C. Referring to provisions of Section - 82 Cr.P.C., it was submitted that the process under Section - 82 Cr.P.C. has been issued in a routine manner without compliance of provisions of Section - 82 Cr.P.C. and thus, the impugned order is