- (1.)K. C. Bhargara, J. This is a petition under Section 482, Cr. P. C. Heard learned Counsel for the applicant as well as learned State Counsel who agree that the petition itself may be disposed of finally at this stage. Learned Counsel for the applicant has argued that in the present case the court had ordered for issue of summons but no summons was served on the applicant and in spite of the non-service of summons on the applicant non- bailable warrant was issued against the applicant which is against the provisions of the law.
(2.)A perusal of paras 8 to 13 of the petition and the various copies of the order-sheet of the proceedings filed by the applicant with the supplementary affidavit goes to show that the court has ordered that the petitioner be sum moned who was accused in that case. Those summons could not be served but non- bailable warrant of arrest has been issued against the petitioner. Unless the court below comes to a definite conclusion on the basis of the record that the summons have been served on the accused it has no jurisdiction to issue the non-bailable warrant. In the present case there is no observation of the learned Magistrate that the summons issued had been served on the petitioner and he had not appeared in spite of service of the summons. Therefore, issuing of the non-bailable warrants against the petitioner was not justified and this order does not comply the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure and deserves to be quashed.
The order of the learned Magistrate dated April 28, 1992, contained in Annexure No. 5 is quashed. However, it is made clear that the learned Magistrate may proceed in accordance with law. The petitioner shall appear before the court concerned on October 16, 1992. The trial court should try to conclude the case at an early date. With the above observations the petition is disposed of finally.

Let a copy of this order be given to the learned Counsel for the petitioner on payment of usual charges by tomorrow. Petition allowed. .