Disposed

Rajesh and Another v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC5 Mar 2025NA528/7378/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Quashing application; non-bailable warrants recall; Section 82 Cr.P.C. process; Section 482 Cr.P.C.; Application U/S 528 BNSS; no coercive action for 21 days; expeditious hearing of recall application; costs on frivolous exemption applications; Additional Sessions Judge/POCSO Act Court No. II Mathura; Criminal Case No. 1045 of 2021; Case Crime No. 171 of 2021; Police Station Chhata District Mathur

What did the court decide?

Application disposed of with directions: the applicant may appear before the trial court and file a proper recall application against the non-bailable warrants and the Section 82 Cr.P.C. order, which

Rajesh and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another — Allahabad HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:33464

¶2

Court No. - 76

¶3

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 7378 of 2025

¶4

Applicant :- Rajesh And Another Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Pankaj Dwivedi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Vinod Diwakar,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned AGA for the State-respondent, and perused the records.

¶7

The present application has been filed under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.) seeking quashing of the impugned non-bailable warrants dated 12.12.2024, 08.04.2024, and the order dated 07.01.2025, whereby process under Section 82 Cr.P.C. was issued against the applicants by the learned Additional Sessions Judge/POCSO Act, Court No. II, Mathura, in Criminal Case No. 1045 of 2021, arising from Case Crime No. 171 of 2021, under Section 15(2) of the Petroleum and Minerals Pipelines (Acquisition of Right of User in Land) Act, 1934, Sections 3/4 of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908, Sections 3/4 of the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, and Section 285 of the Indian Penal Code, registered at Police Station Chhata, District Mathura.

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the impugned order is against the facts and law. He further submits that the applicant was unaware of the proceedings initiated against him and, as a result, failed to appear before the trial court on the date fixed. Consequently, non-bailable warrants were issued against him.

¶9

On the other hand, learned AGA opposes the applicant's submissions, asserting that the proceedings were initiated as per law and that the applicant's absence before the trial court warranted the issuance of non-bailable warrants.

¶10

After hearing the submissions of learned counsel for the applicant, learned AGA for State, and after going through the overall facts and circumstances of the case, this Court finds it appropriate to grant the applicant an opportunity to appear before the trial court and seek appropriate relief.

¶11

Accordingly, the instant application is disposed of with the following direction that if the applicant appears before the trial court and files a proper application for the recall of the impugned non-bailable warrants and the order issued under Section 82 Cr.P.C., the trial court shall expeditiously hear and decide the same in accordance with law. No coercive action shall be taken against the applicant for 21 days from the date of this order or until he files the aforementioned application before the trial court, whichever is earlier. The trial court shall not entertain any frivolous or repetitive personal exemption applications. Any such applications, if filed, shall be dismissed with reasonable costs imposed on the applicant.

¶12

Order Date :- 6.3.2025 Anil K. Sharma

¶13

Justice Vinod Diwakar

¶14

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

Rajesh and Another v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajesh and Another 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases