Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 237 (RAJ)

Abdul Sattar v. State of Rajasthan

2009-01-27

BHANWAROO KHAN

body2009
JUDGMENT 1. - Against the petitioners a complaint for commission of the offence under Sections 420 and 406 IPC was filed by complaint Prem Bai, respondent no.2 herein which was sent to the police for investigation under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. It seems that after investigation, the police submitted a negative final report. The complainant filed a protest petition and the Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class Itawa, Kota after examining the complainant and her witnesses under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. vide order dated 26.7.2008 took cognizance against the petitioners under Sections 420 and 120-B IPC and summoned both the petitioners through warrant of arrest. Feeling aggrieved of the order of the court below taking cognizance and summoning the petitioners through arrest warrant, they have filed the instant petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. with the prayer that the arrest warrants issued under Section 70 Cr.P.C. be converted into bailable warrants. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and learned P.P. and perused the impugned order. 3. The only request of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the arrest warrants so issued be converted into bailable warrants under Section 70(2) Cr.P.C. because looking to the nature of the allegations levelled against the petitioners and on the basis of the statement of the complainant, summoning the accused petitioners through arrest warrant at the first instance is not proper as they could have been summoned either by summons or by bailable warrants. 4. Learned P.P. on the other-hand has opposed the arguments and has supported the order passed by the court below and has submitted that if the court below has used its discretion to summon the accused through arrest warrant, it cannot be said that there is any illegality in the order or that the order is against the ends of justice. 5. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned P.P. I have gone through the order passed by the court below and also the documents placed on the record of the case. 6. Once the arrest warrant is issued, then it can either be executed or cancelled. The bailable warrant can be issued by the Court under Section 71 of the Cr.P.C. Under this Section the Court can only order the release of the person arrested and can lay down the condition for such release. 7. 6. Once the arrest warrant is issued, then it can either be executed or cancelled. The bailable warrant can be issued by the Court under Section 71 of the Cr.P.C. Under this Section the Court can only order the release of the person arrested and can lay down the condition for such release. 7. The question as to whether a direction for the release of the arrested person on bail should be endorsed on the warrant under this Section, is entirely left to the discretion of the Court issuing the warrant. Under Section 70 of the Cr.P.C. if an arrest warrant is issued, then it for the person concern against whom arrest warrant is issued either to appear before the Court or to get the warrant executed. Once the person against whom an arrest warrant is issued, appears before the Court and moves a petition, it is obligatory on the part of the Court to decide the same on the same day without adjournment and without remanding the accused to a few days. 8. The judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Inder Mohan Goswami and Another v. State of Uttaranchal & Ors. { (2007) 12 SCC 1 }. also speaks about the same proposition. 9. In the instant case the petitioners are facing allegations under Sections 420 and 120-B IPC and the court below after going through the facts and circumstances of the case and the entire material and evidence available on the record has decided to summon the accused petitioners through arrest warrant, then I find no illegality in the order passed by the court below as it does not amount an abuse of process of law or the judicial authority. In such circumstances no interference is warranted in the order passed by the court below and this misc. petition deserves to be dismissed. 10. Consequently, the criminal misc. petition stands dismissed with the direction that if the accused petitioners surrender before the court and move application for grant of bail then the bail application shall be decided expeditiously and if possible on the same day.Petition dismissed with direction. *******