The instant application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicant with a prayer to quash the order dated 27.01.2021 passed by the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Court No.12, Faizabad in Criminal Revision No. 19 of 2019 (Ramakant Tiwari Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.) as well as summoning order dated 01.11.2018 passed by the Judicial Magistrate II, Faizabad in Complaint Case No. 231 of 2015, under Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act and also to quash all the proceedings of the case pending before the court below.
Heard Sri Rajeev Narayan Pandey, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Rupendra Kumar Singh, learned AGA for the State.
Learned counsel for the applicant has raised various submissions pertaining to the fact that the cognizance could not be taken by the Magistrate at Faizabad as the same was barred by the limitation as well as the fact that the file, contrary to law was handed over to the complainant by the Court at Delhi and also that the Revisional Court has exceeded its jurisdiction and by meticulously examining the material/evidence has rejected the prayer of the applicant and, therefore, the whole proceedings pending before the trial Court as well as the order of the Revisional Court is bad in law and the same be quashed.
However, when confronted that the cognizance has already been taken by a Court at Delhi and the case has been transferred to a Court at Faizabad in compliance of the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court passed in Dashrath Rupsingh Rathod Vs. State Bank of Maharashtra reported in 2014 (9) SCC 129 and thereafter, the applicant has been summoned to face trial under Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act. He confines his prayer that the non bailable warrant issued by the trial Court is against law as the same has been issued just after the disposal of the Revision by the Additional Sessions Judge, Faizabad.
Learned AGA on the other hand submits that the application is misconceived and it could not be said that the applicant was not having any information about the pendency of the proceedings before the Magistrate Court as he has filed Revision in the Court of Sessions Judge, Faizabad and it was obligatory for him to remain present before the trial Court.
In rebuttal, learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant had already been released on bail on 29.04.2014 by the Court of Metropolitan Magistrate at Delhi and, therefore, there was no occasion for the applicant to remain absent and it was only due to fact that he was advised to file instant proceeding against the order of the Revisional Court, he could not appear before the Court of Magistrate.
Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the record, it is admitted to the parties that the incident of the case was instituted at a Court of Delhi and thereafter, in view of aforesaid judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court the same was transferred to the Court at Faizabad and thereafter, on certain grounds the Revision was preferred by the applicant and the same was dismissed on 27.01.2021. Though the delay of filing these proceedings after a lapse of six months has not been adequately explained but having regard to the fact that the whole country was adversely affected by the Covid-19 Pandemic, so were the functioning of the Courts, the instant application is disposed of with a direction to the Court of Judicial Magistrate II, Faizabad or any Court where this case has now been transferred that if an application for cancellation of the non bailable warrant is moved by the applicant within 15 days from today and it is shown before the Magistrate concerned that the applicant had already been granted bail in this case by some Court at Delhi, the Magistrate concerned shall adopt a lenient view in cancellation of non bailable warrant issued against the applicant.
If no application of cancellation of non bailable warrant along with the proof of obtaining bail has been moved within 15 days from today, the trial Court shall proceed further in accordance with law.
Order Date :- 28.7.2021 Mohit