Naresh vs State of U.P. and Another — Cheating and Forgery | Allahabad HC (2025)

Naresh vs State of U.P. and Another — Cheating and Forgery | Allahabad HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Conditional directions: applicant given three weeks to appear before the court below and apply for bail/recall of the NBW, such application to be decided in light of the cited Supreme Court judgments; execution of the NBW kept in abeyance for three weeks or until appearance, whichever is earlier; relief to quash the cognizance order dated 27.11.2011 dismissed as not pressed.

Issue for consideration

Whether the orders dated 27.01.2011 and 18.07.2022 passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 6, Meerut, whereby a non-bailable warrant has been issued against the applicant, should be quashed. +1 more

Court's answer

The application was finally disposed of with a direction that if the applicant appears before the court below within three weeks and applies for bail/recall of the non-bailable warrant, his application shall be decided in the light of the observations in the Supreme Court judgments in Satender Kumar Antil, Siddharth and Aman Preet Singh.

Ratio / Principle

The relief to quash the cognizance order dated 27.11.2011 was dismissed as not pressed, at the instance of the applicant's counsel.

Key takeaways

Execution of the non-bailable warrant against the applicant was kept in abeyance for three weeks from the date of this order or till the applicant appears before the court below, whichever is earlier.ratio¶17

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Allahabad High Court (Sanjay Kumar Pachori, J.), November 25, 2025 — APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. 38693 of 2025, Naresh v. State of U.P. and Another. Application under Section 528 BNSS to quash the orders dated 27.01.2011 and 18.07.2022 of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 6, Meerut, in Criminal Case No. 134 of 2011 (arising out of Case Crime No. 299 of 2010, under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 414 IPC), whereby a non-bailable warrant was issued against the applicant. The relief against the cognizance order dated 27.11.2011 was dismissed as not pressed. The application was finally disposed of with a direction that if the applicant appears before the court below within three weeks and applies for bail/recall of the NBW, the application shall be decided in the light of the observations in Satender Kumar Antil (2021) 10 SCC 773, Siddharth (2022) 11 SCC 676 and Aman Preet Singh 2021 SCC Online SC 941. Execution of the NBW was kept in abeyance for three weeks or till the applicant appears, whichever is earlier.

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 38693 of 2025

Naresh

.....Applicant(s)

	Versus
State of U.P. and Another	.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s)	: Mahendra Kumar Yadav, Mansa Singh, Swapnil, Vijeta Kushwaha
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)	: G.A.

Court No. - 75

HON'BLE SANJAY KUMAR PACHORI, J.

Ms. Vijeta Kushwaha, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Karunakar Singh, learned A.G.A. for the State are present.

The present application under Section 528 BNSS has been filed to quash the order dated 27.01.2011 and order dated 18.07.2022 passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 6, Meerut in Criminal Case No. 134 of 2011, arising out of Case Crime No. 299 of 2010, under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, and 414 of IPC, whereby NBW has been issued against the applicant.

Learned counsel fore the applicant does not want to press the relief to quash the cognizance order dated 27.11.2011. Accordingly, this relief is dismissed as not pressed.

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant was on bail at the time of issuing non-bailable warrant. It is further submitted that the impugned order has been passed without satisfying itself that the summon and other process for attendance has been served. It is further submitted that the impugned order has been passed without considering the position of law. It is settled position of law that N.B.W. should be issued as a last resort after the litigant fails to respond the notices/summons and bailable warrant. It is further submitted that non-bailable warrant has been issued without issuing any summon and bailable warrant.

Learned A.G.A. as well as learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 have

NA528 No. 38693 of 2025

2

opposed the application.

Considering submissions of learned counsel for the applicants and perusing record, the instant application is finally disposed of with a direction that in case applicant appears before the court below within three weeks from today and applies for bail/recall of non bailable warrant, his application shall be decided in the light of the observations made in the judgments rendered by the Supreme Court in Satender Kumar Antil Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation & Another, (2021) 10 SCC 773, Siddharth Vs. The State of Uttar Pradesh & Another 2022 (11) SCC 676 and Aman Preet Singh Vs. C.B.I. through Director 2021 SCC Online SC 941 .

For a period of three weeks from today or till applicant appears before the court below, whichever is earlier, execution of non bailable warrant against applicant shall be kept in abeyance.

November 25, 2025 MAA/-

(Sanjay Kumar Pachori,J.)

Digitally signed by :- MOHAMMAD AZAD ANSARI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad