Matin Ahmed S/O Shri Umar Khan (Thekedar) Vs M/S Navbharat Buildcon

[2025:RJ-JP:35130]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 5053/2025

Matin Ahmed S/o Shri Umar Khan (Thekedar), R/o Behind Sarkar Hotel, Gandhi Nagar, Madanganj-Kishangarh, District Ajmer Rajathan.

¶5

----Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

M/s Navbharat Buildcon, (Registered Private Company Under Indian Company Act), Registered Office- Luhadiya Sadan, Jaipur Road, Madanganj, Kishangarh, Through Operator Anil Kumar Luhadiya S/o Shri Moolchand Luhadiya, R/o Luhadiya Sadan Jaipur Road, Madanganj, Kishangarh, District Ajmer (Rajasthan).

¶8

----Respondent

¶9

For Petitioner(s)	: Mr.	Prakash Chand Yadav
For Respondent(s)	: Mr.	J.K. Moolchandani

¶10

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDESH BANSAL

¶11

Order

¶12

01/09/2025

¶13

Heard counsel for both parties and perused the record.

¶14

Under challenge is the order dated 20.08.2024 issued by the Court of Special Judge, NI Act Cases, Kishangarh, Ajmer in Criminal Case No. 799/2024 titled as M/s Navbhrat Buildcon Vs. Matin Ahmed, declaring the petitioner absconder and issuing permanent arrest warrant against him in the criminal proceedings under Section 138 of the NI Act.

¶15

Counsel for petitioner has argued that after taking cognizance for offence under Section 138 NI Act, summons were never served upon the petitioner and without ensuring service of summons and bailable warrant, the trial Court has proceeded

[2025:RJ-JP:35130]

[CRLMP-5053/2025]

(2 of 3)

under Section 82/83 Cr.P.C. and has issued the permanent arrest warrant.

¶20

Per contra , counsel appearing on behalf of complainant states that cognizance against the petitioner was taken way back on 05.03.2016 and since then, petitioner is evading the service of summons, then bailable warrant was issued against him, which too, he not responded, hence, the trial Court has no other option except to declare the petitioner absconder.

¶21

Having considered the rival submissions of counsel for both parties and considering the nature of offence under Section 138 of the NI Act, which bailable in nature, this Court finds that the permanent arrest warrant has been issued against the petitioner in the backdrop of facts and that the trial Court in the present criminal case has not been able to proceed with the trial for want of appearance of the accused. The very purpose of issuing permanent arrest warrant is to ensure presence of accused petitioner before the trial Court, so that the trial may be proceeded further. There is reason to believe that petitioner, somehow, managed to evade in appearance by hook or crook and delay the trial for long about more than eight years. Hence, no interference in the order impugned is warranted.

¶22

Counsel for petitioner undertakes that petitioner shall surrender before trial Court within a period of 15 days’ and prays that he may be ordered to be released on bail. 7. In that view of the matter, instead of going into deep merits/ demerits of the case, this Court deems it just and proper to dispose of the present petition with liberty to petitioner to

[2025:RJ-JP:35130]

[CRLMP-5053/2025]

(3 of 3)

surrender himself before the trial Court on or before 24.09.2025, as agreed and suggested by counsel for petitioner.

¶27

In case, petitioner surrenders himself, and moves a bail application before the trial Court and the trial Court shall make an endeavor to decide the application preferably on the same day, in accordance with law, if possible and shall take into consideration the nature of offence, which is primarily of bailable in nature.

¶28

It would be open for the trial Court to impose conditions upon the petitioner to ensure his presence in the present criminal case for expeditious disposal and conclusion of trial expeditiously.

¶29

With aforesaid observations, instant petition stands disposed of.

¶30

All pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of.

¶31

(SUDESH BANSAL),J

¶32

NITIN /157

Matin Ahmed S/O Shri Umar Khan (Thekedar) v. M/S Navbharat Buildcon

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Matin Ahmed S/O Shri Umar Khan (Thekedar) v. M/S Navbharat Buildcon

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Nahar Singh S/O Shri Dulichand, Vs State of Rajasthan

Dr. S. Bhala S/O Late Shri B.L. Bhala Vs Islamuddin Ansari S/O Alimuddin

Mukesh Kumar S/O Chhagan Lal, Vs State of Rajasthan

Hemraj S/O Shri Ramchandra, Vs State of Rajasthan

Ranveer Singh @ Ranveer Bijarnia S/O Shri Madan Lal, Vs the State of Rajasthan

Opendra Bijaraniya Son of Trilokchand Vs the State of Rajasthan