Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 2196 (RAJ)

Anwar Hussain v. State of Rajasthan

2012-11-07

SANDEEP MEHTA

body2012
JUDGMENT 1. - The instant misc. petition has been preferred on behalf of the petitioner challenging the orders dated 25.4.2005 and 27.8.2010 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate (First Class), Badi Sadri in connection with F.I.R. No. 313/2001, registered at the Police Station Badi Sadri, Distt. Chittorgarh and FR No. 84/2001, whereby, the learned Magistrate has rejected the FR filed by the police and summoned the petitioner for the offence under Section 420 I.P.C. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the learned Magistrate initially on the basis of the protest petition filed by the complainant summoned the petitioner by summons. Learned counsel submits that the summons were never served upon the petitioner and ultimately the learned Magistrate by order dated 27.8.2010 has issued a standing warrant against the petitioner declaring him to be absconder and proceedings under Sections 82 and 83 have also been initiated against him. Learned counsel submits that without service of the summons or the bailable warrant, the learned Magistrate was not at all justified in issuing the standing warrant of arrest against the petitioner. He further submits that the petitioner is ready to appear before the learned Magistrate and to face the proceedings but the direction of the learned Magistrate issuing standing warrant of arrest against the petitioner be modified and now the petitioner be permitted to be summoned through a bailable warrant. Learned counsel for the petitioner undertakes that the petitioner shall appear before the concerned Magistrate as and when called upon to do so and he seeks liberty to raise all his objections for challenging the proceedings going on against the petitioner at the stage of framing of charges. 3. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and upon perusal of the orders impugned passed by the learned trial Court below, it is apparent that the summons or the bailable warrants issued against the petitioner were not served upon the petitioner and despite that the learned Magistrate by order dated 27.8.2010 summoned the petitioner by standing warrant of arrest. 3. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and upon perusal of the orders impugned passed by the learned trial Court below, it is apparent that the summons or the bailable warrants issued against the petitioner were not served upon the petitioner and despite that the learned Magistrate by order dated 27.8.2010 summoned the petitioner by standing warrant of arrest. Since the petitioner himself is offering that he is ready to appear before the Court below as and when called upon to do so, this Court is of the opinion that one opportunity deserves to be given to the petitioner for appearing before the learned Magistrate so that the proceedings of the criminal case can be taken forward.In view of the aforesaid discussion, whilst upholding the order dated 25.4.2005 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate (First Class), Badi Sadri taking cognizance against the petitioner, the order dated 27.8.2010 directing summoning the petitioner through standing warrant of arrest is modified. Now, it is hereby directed that the petitioner shall be summoned by issuing bailable warrant in the sum of rupees forty thousand. The petitioner shall appear before the learned Magistrate within a period of four weeks from today and furnish the bail bonds in terms of the bailable warrant, failing which, the order dated 27.8.2010 directing summoning the petitioner through standing warrant of arrest shall be restored:The misc. petition as well as stay petition are disposed of accordingly.Petition disposed of. *******