Court No. - 81
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 46541 of 2019 Applicant :- Surendra Maurya And Anr Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Dharmendra Kumar Shukla,Uma Nath Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Dinesh Kumar Singh-I,J.
Heard Shri Shiv Ram Dubey, holding brief of Shri Uma Nath Pandey, learned counsel for the applicants and in opposition, Shri G.P. Singh, learned A.G.A. for the State of U.P. and perused the record.
This application under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. has been moved on behalf of the applicants with a prayer to quash the order of N.B.W. dated 01.03.2019 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sant Kabir Nagar, as well as order dated 22.05.2019, by which process of Section 82 of Cr.P.C. has been issued in Case No. 4575 of 2015 (State v. Surendra Maurya and others), under Sections 363, 366, 504 and 506 of I.P.C., Police Station - Dhanghata, District - Sant Kabir Nagar, arising out of Charge- sheet dated 18.07.2010, Case Crime No. 662 of 2010, pending in the court of Additional Civil Judge (S.D.)/Fast Track Court, Sant Kabir Nagar.
It is argued by learned counsel for the applicant that he had approached this Court by moving Application u/s 482 No. 482 No. - 1569 of 2011 (Surendra Maurya and others v. State of U.P. and Another), whereby vide order dated 07.02.2017, he was given two months' time to appear before the trial court and getting himself bailed out in view of the observations made by this Court in the Full Bench decision of Amrawati and Another
v. State of U.P. reported in 2004 (57) ALR 290 and also in view of the decision given by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh v. State of U.P. reported in 2009
(3) ADJ 322 (SC), but he could not avail the benefit of the said order because the said order was passed in his absence, which is revealed from para 2 of the said judgment. Therefore, he has moved the present application, seeking quashing of order of
N.B.W. dated 01.03.2019 and has prayed that the same needs to be quashed.
Per contra, learned A.G.A. vehemently opposed the prayer so made.
I have gone through the record of the case and find that the order dated 01.03.2019 was passed by this Court in the absence of the party, hence, it could be probable that he might not be having knowledge of the said order and thus, could not appear before the court on time.
I do not see any infirmity in the impugned order passed by the trial court as the N.B.W. has been issued in order to procure the attendance of the accused and hence, passing of the same appears to be justified.
In view of above, prayer for quashing of the N.B.W. is refused.
However, in the interest of justice, 30 days' time and no more is allowed to the applicant to appear before the court below and move an application for recall of the N.B.W. If such an application is moved, the same shall be decided in accordance with law. If the said application is rejected and a bail application is moved by the applicant, the same shall be disposed of in accordance with law.
For a period of 30 days from today, no coercive measure shall be adopted against the applicant, but if the accused does not appear within that period, coercive steps shall be taken.
With the aforesaid observations/directions, the instant application stands disposed of.
Order Date :- 17.12.2019 I. Batabyal