The High Court quashed a non-bailable warrant and proclamation issued against the petitioner for failure to appear in court due to being posted abroad, accepting her assurance of future presence.
Orders dated 23rd April 2009 (NBW) and 15th June 2009 (proclamation) issued against the petitioner were set aside.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
RMA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 1917 OF 2009
Sudha Ravi
.. Petitioner
Vs
Nazir Mohammed Hussain & Anr.. Respondents
Mr. Harihar Bhave i/b M/s. Bhave & Co for the Petitioner
Mr. Ganesh Gole for Respondent No. 1
Ms. A.A. Mane, APP for the State
P.C.:
1. Heard learned advocate for the petitioner-original accused, learned advocate for respondent no. 1-original complainant and learned APP for the State.
2. Respondent no.1-original complainant had filed a complaint against the petitioner-original accused who was Assistant General Manager of State Bank of India at the relevant time. The complaint is under Sections 217, 409, 465 and 463 of IPC. It is now numbered as 839/S/2001 and it is pending before the learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate 9th Court, Bandra, Mumbai.
3. The learned advocate for the petitioner states that he is
1
pressing only for quashing of NBW issued against the
petitioner by learned ACMM by order dated 23rd April 2009
and quashing of order dated 15th June 2009 passed by the
learned ACMM whereby proclamation came to be issued
against the petitioner. Learned advocate for the
petitioner states that except these two reliefs, he is not
pressing for any other reliefs in the present petition and
he seeks liberty to move for appropriate relief before the
appropriate forum in respect of other prayers. Liberty as
prayed for is granted, hence, this petition is being
considered only in respect of order dated 23rd April 2009
whereby NBW came to be issued and order dated 15th June
2010 whereby proclamation came to be issued by the
learned ACMM.
4.Learned advocate for the petitioner stated that the
petitioner being a bank official, she was posted by the
bank at Washington. As she was posted in Washington, she
was not able to attend the Court of learned ACMM in the
said case, hence, above two orders issuing NBW and
proclamation came to be passed against the petitioner.
5.Learned advocate for the petitioner stated that the
petitioner has now been posted back to Mumbai, hence,
there is no impediment for the petitioner to attend the
trial Court. The learned advocate for the petitioner on
instructions assures the court that henceforth, the
2
petitioner will be represented by an advocate on all dates
before the trial Court and in addition, the petitioner
will also remain present on all the dates before the trial
Court. In view of the assurance given to the Court, the
orders dated 23rd April 2009 and 15th June 2009 are set
aside. It is clarified that if the petitioner cannot
attend the trial Court on account of some serious
difficulty, it would be open to the petitioner to prefer
an application for exemption, which the learned Magistrate
will consider on its own merits, in accordance with law.
6.Petition is disposed of in above terms.
[SMT. V.K. TAHILRAMANI, J.]
3
4
2 issues framed by the court
Whether to quash the non-bailable warrant and proclamation issued against the petitioner for hindering prosecution.
Whether the petitioner's assurance of future presence in court justifies setting aside the coercive orders.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Sudha Ravi
Nazir Mohammed Hussain & Anr.
V.K. TAHILRAMANI
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court