- (1.) Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioners. This application has been filed for quashing of the order dated 12/10/2012, passed in complaint case No. 76/2010, whereby and whereunder the Court having rejected the representation, filed under Section 317 Cr.P.C. passed an order for issuance of non-bailable warrant of arrest against the petitioners.
(2.) Mr. Lall, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that right from the beginning the petitioners have been appearing in this case either physically or by filing application under Section 317 Cr.P.C. even during the period from 11/10/2011 to 30/08/2012, when none of the witnesses was produced by the complainant. One witness was produced on 05/10/2012, but at the instance of the parties, the matter was adjourned to 12/10/2012 as it was communicated to the Court that they are trying to settle their matrimonial dispute. On 12/10/2012, a representation was filed under Section 317 Cr.P.C., which was rejected though none of the witnesses was present on that day and after the application was dismissed, an order was passed for issuance of non-bailable warrant of arrest though the petitioners had never misused the privilege of bail even for a single date.
(3.) In the facts and circumstances as stated above, I do not find any justification on the part of the Court for cancelling the bail bond and for rejecting the application, filed under Section 317 Cr.P.C. as on that day the complainant had not produced any witness for its examination. Accordingly, the order dated 12/10/2012, is hereby set aside. The petitioners are directed to put appearance before the Court below on the date fixed. In the result, this application stands allowed.;