Court No. - 13
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 26772 of 2018 Applicant :- Ritesh Tewari Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- A.K. Mishra,Sati Shanker Tripathi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Umesh Chandra Tripathi,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State of U.P. in opposition and perused the record.
This application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short 'Code') has been filed on behalf of the applicant with a prayer to quash the order dated 05.06.2018, whereby non-bailable warrant was issued against the applicant.
Learned counsel for the applicant contended that the applicant - Ritesh Tiwari has been summoned for the offence punishable under Section 406 and 506(1) of the Indian Penal Code (in short 'IPC') on 27.04.2016 by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 5, Ghaziabad. Against the impugned summoning order, the applicant preferred a criminal revision before Sessions Judge, Ghaziabad with an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 to condone the delay in filing the revision. The aforesaid revision is pending before the Sessions Judge. In between, learned Magistrate has passed the impugned order of issuing non-bailable warrant against the applicant. He further prays that till the decision of revision, proceedings of trial court be stayed.
Learned counsel for the applicant further contended that cognizance of offence punishable under Section 406 of IPC has been taken against the applicant after period of limitation, which is not sustainable in the eyes of law.
Per contra, learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer made and arguments thereof advanced by learned counsel for the applicant contended that there is no illegality in the impugned order of issuing non-bailable warrant by the court below.
Learned counsel for the applicant may raise his objection before the appropriate forum, i.e. revisional court. Moreover, on the same fact, the applicant cannot file both revision before the court below and application under Section 482 of the Code before this Court.
From the perusal of record, it reveals that the proceedings has not been stayed by revisional court. As such, the Magistrate has not committed any error in passing the impugned order. This Court has no jurisdiction to pass order to stay the proceedings of the court below.
In view of above, the prayer for quashing the impugned order passed by the Magistrate and staying the proceedings thereof is refused.
However, the applicant may appear before the court below and pray for bail. If he does so, his bail application shall be heard and decided most expeditiously, strictly in accordance with law.
For a period of 45 days from today, no coercive action shall be taken against the applicant.
With the aforesaid observations/directions, the instant application stands disposed of.
Order Date :- 23.8.2018 I. Batabyal