SEVENDRA SINGH PARIHAR Vs. STATE OF M.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the petitioner being aggrieved by the order dated 19.09.2019 passed by JMFC, Lanji, District Balaghat in RCT No. 506/2019 whereby warrant of arrest has been issued against the petitioner seeking his presence before the said Court. Although, in relief clause, the petitioner also seeks quashment of entire proceeding but during argument he confined himself to the prayer of quashment of order dated 19.09.2019.

(2.) According to case, the police station Lanji has registered a case against the petitioner and other co-accused person in Crime No. 105/2012 for the offences under Section 465 , 471 , 181 , 120- B,467 and 468 of IPC as well as section 30 of Arms Act. Since, the petitioner is absconding, therefore, police filed the charge sheet with Farari Panchnama. Vide order dated 19.09.2019, the Court found sufficient material for taking cognizance against the petitioner and co- accused person, thus, issued non bailable warrant of arrest against them. At this juncture, it is pertinent to mention that the initially the case was registered for the bailable offences and petitioner has been enlarged on bail by the police officer but during investigation offence of Section 467 and 468 has been added in the case which are non bailable offences.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order issuing arrest warrant against the petitioner declaring him as absconder is bad and contrary to law. He submits that no offences are made out against the petitioner. After registration of FIR under Sections 465 , 471 , 181 and 120-B of IPC as well as Section 30 of Arms Act, the petitioner was granted bail on 07.09.2012. Thereafter, police enhanced the offence of Section 467 and 468 of IPC and filed the charge sheet before the Court. The Court has issued a notice for securing the presence of present petitioner but said notice was never served upon the petitioner and therefore, the petitioner could not present before the Court. On the date of filing charge sheet, the petitioner was on bail. The petitioner's counsel relied the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Inder Mohan Singh Vs. State of Uttaranchal, reported in AIR 2008 SC 151 and submitted that order of issuance of non bailable order has violated the principle and guideline issued by the Hon'ble Apex Court in that case. He also submits that the Court should issue non bailable warrant only if Court is fully satisfy that the accused is avoiding the Court proceedings intentionally. Personal liberty is paramount. But the learned trial Court without applying the mind in proper perspective, issued non-bailable warrant against the petitioner which caused great prejudice to the petitioner. With the aforesaid, he prays for quashment of impugned order.