Amit Kumar vs State of U.P. and Another — Allahabad HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

Amit Kumar vs State of U.P. and Another — Allahabad HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Conditional relief: no coercive action against the applicant for 15 days or until he moves a recall application before the trial Court, whichever is earlier, with the trial Court directed to decide any such recall application expeditiously; the application itself was disposed of with a cost of Rs.5000/- payable by the applicant to the District Legal Services Authority, without quashing the Non Bailable Warrant.

Issue for consideration

Whether the Non Bailable Warrant dated 15.5.2024 issued against the applicant should be quashed, on his claim that he had no knowledge of the proceedings and hence could not appear before the trial Court.

Court's answer

The Court did not quash the Non Bailable Warrant outright; instead it directed that if the applicant appears before the trial Court and moves an appropriate application for recalling the impugned orders, the trial Court shall decide the same expeditiously in accordance with law.

Ratio / Principle

Interim protection: for a period of 15 days, or until the applicant moves an application before the trial Court (whichever is earlier), no coercive action shall be taken against the applicant.

Key takeaways

The trial Court shall not entertain fictitious and repetitive personal exemption applications; if filed, such applications shall be dismissed with reasonable costs.ratio¶11

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Allahabad High Court (Vinod Diwakar, J.) — Application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. No. 22034 of 2024 (Amit Kumar v. State of U.P.) seeking quashing of a Non Bailable Warrant dated 15.5.2024 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mirzapur in Case No.5858 of 2014 (State v. Ramraj Yadav and another), arising out of Case Crime No.808 of 2013 under section 4/21 of the Mines & Minerals (Development & Regulation) Act, 1957, 3/57/70 of the U.P. Minor Minerals (Concession) Rules, 1963 and 3/4 Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984, Police Station Vindhyachal, District Mirzapur. Applicant pleaded lack of knowledge of the proceedings. The Court disposed of the application without quashing the warrant, directing that on the applicant's appearance and filing of an appropriate application for recalling the impugned orders, the trial Court shall decide it expeditiously in accordance with law; no coercive action was to be taken against the applicant for 15 days or until such application was moved, whichever was earlier; fictitious and repetitive personal exemption applications were not to be entertained and, if filed, were to be dismissed with reasonable costs; and a cost of Rs.5,000/- was imposed, payable to the District Legal Services Authority.

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:8407

Court No. - 76

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 22034 of 2024

Applicant :- Amit Kumar Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Anil Kumar,Ramesh Kumar Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

Hon'ble Vinod Diwakar,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 15.5.2024 passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mirzapur in Case N o.5858 of 2014 titled State v. Ramraj Yadav and another, arising out of Case Crime No.808 of 2013, under section 4/21 of Mines & Minerals (Development & Regulation) Act, 1957, 3/57/70 of U.P. Minor Minerals (Concession) Rules, 1963 & 3/4 Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984, Police Station Vindhyachal, District Mirzapur.

Learned counsel for applicants submits that the impugned orders are against the facts and law. The applicant had no knowledge about the proceedings initiated against him due to which they could not appear on the date fixed by the trial Court, hence, nonbailable warrants were issued against the applicant.

Per contra , learned A.G.A has opposed.

Considering the facts and circumstances of the matter, it is directed that in case the applicant appears and moves appropriate application before the trial Court for recalling the impugned

orders, the same shall be decided expeditiously in accordance with law. For a period of 15 days or till the applicant moves an application before the trial Court, whichever is earlier, no coercive action shall be taken against the applicant. Further, the Court shall not entertain the fictitious and repetitive personal exemption application, and if filed, the same shall be dismissed with reasonable costs.

The application is disposed of with the cost of Rs.5000/- to be deposited by the applicant in favour of District Legal Services Authority.

Order Date :- 16.1.2025 Anil K. Sharma

Justice Vinod Diwakar

Digitally signed by :- ANIL KUMAR SHARMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad