Court No. - 52
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 10065 of 2018 Applicant :- Narendra Singh And 4 Others Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Sanjeev Kumar Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Rajul Bhargava,J.
Heard Sri Sanjeev Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the applicants and learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material placed on record.
The present application has been filed by the applicants for quashing the impugned order dated 16.3.2018 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.7, Etah in S.T. No. 389 of 2010 (State vs. Narendra and others) arising out of Case Crime No.36 of 2000 under Sections 147,148, 506, 308 and 504 I.P.C., Police Station Awagarh,District Etah, whereby non-bailable warrants and process under Section 82 Cr.P.C. has been issued against the applicants.
Learned counsel for the applicants has submitted that impugned order dated 16.3.2018 is wholly arbitrary, illegal and unsustainable in the eyes of law. He has further submitted that trial court has committed gross illegality by issuing non-bailable warrant and process under Section 82 Cr.P.C. Therefore, the impugned order dated 16.3.2018 may be quashed.
Per contra, learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the prayer of the applicants and submitted that F.I.R. against the applicants was lodged in the year 2000 and after investigation charge sheet dated 21.3.2001 was submitted on which cognizance was also taken by the concerned court. The applicants were summoned by order dated 20.6.2001. He has further submitted that the applicants have not come up before this Court with clean hands as they have not annexed the complete order-sheet of the trial. He has argued that the impugned order was passed by the trial Judge on the ground that the accused-applicants are continuously absconding on account of which non-bailable warrants were issued. Since, despite issuance of non-bailable warrant and forfeiture of personal and surety bonds of some of the accused, they did not appear before the court, the court was left with no option except to initiate process under Section 82 Cr.P.C. Therefore, there is no illegality or impropriety in the impugned order.
I have perused the impugned order and find that submissions made by the learned A.G.A. are absolutely correct and it transpires that the accused- applicants are absconding since long and despite forfeiture of personal and surety bonds of the accused, they have not surrendered before the court concerned.
In view of aforesaid, the instant applicant is bereft of merit and is, accordingly, dismissed.
Considering the fact that the trial is pending since 2000 and it seems that the applicants are not cooperating in it and adopting all kinds of dilatory tactics, the trial court is directed to take stringent and stern measures for ensuring attendance of the accused-applicants before it and conclude the trial of aforesaid case in accordance with law without granting unnecessary adjournments to either of the parties as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of nine months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order, if there is no legal impediment.
The office is directed to send a copy of this order within 72 hours to the court concerned for ensuring its compliance.
Order Date :- 28.3.2018 MN/-