Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 325 (ALL)

AMITABH SHARMA v. STATE OF U. P

2018-02-07

KRISHNA PRATAP SINGH, RAMESH SINHA

body2018
JUDGMENT : 1. Heard Shri Satish Trivedi, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Shri Ajay Kumar Pandey and Shri Sudeep Harkauli, learned counsel for the applicant, Shri Gyan Prakash, learned counsel for the Central Bureau of Investigation and Shri Ashish Pandey, learned Additional Government Advocate representing the State of U.P. and perused the record of the Case. 2. By means of this application under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to "the Code") the applicant, who is a practicing advocate, has prayed for quashing of the impugned charge sheet dated 28.12.2017 and the order dated 02.1.2018 passed by the learned Special Judge, Anti Corruption (CBI) Court No. 3, Ghaziabad whereby the learned Judge has taken cognizance of the offence as well as the entire proceedings of Case No. 01 of 2018 (CBI Vs. Manoj Sharma and others) arising out of FIR No. 0532014S00007 (RD-07(S)/2014/CBI/SCB/LKO, under sections 120-B, 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC and section 13(2) read with 13(1) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, CBI, SCB, Lucknow pending in the Court of learned Special Judge, Anti-Corruption (CBI), Court No. 3, Ghaziabad. 3. In nutshell, the facts of the case are that on 01.8.2014 a letter was written by the Deputy General Manager/Regional head, Bank of Baroda, Regional Office, Agra (UP) to the Superintendent of Police, CBI, SCR, Lucknow for registration of the FIR in respect of the fraud committed at the bank of Baroda, Shikohabad Branch, district firozabad, (U.P.) levelling certain allegations of fraud. In the letter three persons were named as accused. On the basis of the aforesaid letter, a case was registered by the Central Bureau of Investigation, Lucknow at case crime No. RC/07(S)/2014/CBI/SCB/LKO nominating three accused persons, unknown bank officers and others. After the completion of investigation, the CBI submitted a charge sheet in which the application has also been nominated one of the as accused. The relevant portion of the charge sheet insofar as the applicant is concerned, reads as under: "(ix) Investigation has further revealed that two guarantors Smt. Radha Rani and Smt. Ram Murti Devi had already expired before sanction of the loan yet their names were shown as guarantors in the loan documents and title deeds bearing Nos. 2292 dated 26.5.1995 and 5811 dated 19.7.2001 in their names and they were deposited in the Bank by the borrowers. 2292 dated 26.5.1995 and 5811 dated 19.7.2001 in their names and they were deposited in the Bank by the borrowers. Further, in case of Smt. Radha Rani, the property was sold off after death and prior to sanction of the loan. (xi) Investigation has further revealed that the panel Advocate Amitabh Sharma had given false, NEC (Non Encumbrance Certificate) in case of seven guarantors viz. Smt. Radha Rani, Smt. Ram Murti Devi, Shri Bheem Sen, Shri Girijesh Dixit, Smt. Vimla Devi, Shri Uma Shanker and Shri Ram Sewak showing them as the absolute owners of the properties which is in their possession and fit for creating mortgage. (xii) That in the case of guarantor Smt. Ram Murti Devi, during investigation it has emerged that she had died in the year 2004. However, as per report dated 01.4.2009 submitted by Shri Amitabh Sharma, Panel Advocate mentioned that Smt. Ram Murti Devi was the absolute owner of the property at Khasra Plot No. 81, Khata No. 00402, area of 121 sq. mts. Mauza Sukhmal Pur also known as Indira Nagar, Tehsil and District Firozabad and was competent to create equitable mortgage in favour of the Bank by depositing the original title deed No. 5811 dated 19.7.2001 and the said property is free from all encumbrance. That said report was issued by him after he purportedly searched the record of 30 years in the Sub-Registrar's office. (xiii) That in the case of Guarantor Smt. Radha Rani, it has emerged during investigation that though she had also expired in the year 2002. However, as per the report dated 01.4.2009 submitted by Shri Amitabh Sharma, Panel Advocate it is mentioned that Smt. Radha Rani was the absolute owner of the property at Mohalla Shanker Puri, area of 130 sq mts. Tehsil Shikohabad, district Firozabad and was competent to create equitable mortgage in favour of the Bank by deposit of original title deed No. 2292 dated 26.5.1995 and the said property is free from all encumbrance. The said report was issued by him after he purportedly searched the records of 30 years in the Sub-Registrar's office. Invesgigation also revealed that half of the said property was sold by one of her sons Rajesh Dixit to Smt. Uma Dixit vide title deed No. 5721 dated 22.7.2006 who further sold it to Smt. Longshree vide title deed No. 4988 dated 21.7.2008. Invesgigation also revealed that half of the said property was sold by one of her sons Rajesh Dixit to Smt. Uma Dixit vide title deed No. 5721 dated 22.7.2006 who further sold it to Smt. Longshree vide title deed No. 4988 dated 21.7.2008. The other half of the said property was sold by Shri Yogendra Dixit another son of Smt. Radha Rani to Smt. Manorama Devi vide title deed No. 6039 dated 13.8.2007 who in turn sold it to Om Prakash Sharma vide title deed No. 9438 dated 23.11.2009. The aforesaid title deeds have been registered in the office of Sub-Registrar, Shikohabad, district Firozabad and these facts could have been easily ascertained during the search made by the Panel Advocate Shri Amitabh Sharma in the Sub-Registrar's office. Yet a false report was deliberately submitted by him showing Smt. Radha Rani as the absolute owner of the said property. (xv) That in the case of Guarantor Girjesh Dixit, as per the report dated 21.5.2009 of the panel advocate Amitabh Sharma, he was the absolute owner of the property bearing Mpl No. 25/6, Indira Nagar Khasra No. 399, Mauza Sukhmal Pur, Tehsil Firozabad, the then district Agra, area of 111.8 sq mt and competent to create equitable mortgage by deposit of the original title deed No. 7960 dated 27.10.1984. Investigation revealed that this title deed deposited with the Bank was fake and fabricated during the subsequent search conducted by another panel advocate Shri Jaivardhan Tewari. The boundaries area did not match with the original title deed available in the Sub-Registrar's office. (xvi) That in the case of Guarantors Smt. Vimla Devi, as per the report dated 18.4.2009 of the panel Advocate Amitabh Sharma, he has falsely mentioned that she is the absolute owner of the property bearing Mpl No.. 38/3 lies at Gata No. 366, Mauza Sukhmal Pur, Nizamabad, tehsil and District Firozabad, area of 1500 sq ft. and competent to create equitable mortgage by deposit of the original title deed No. 7586 dated 05.8.1986. Investigation revealed that this title deed deposited with the Bank was fake and fabricated. During the subsequent search conducted by another panel Advocate Shri Jaivardhan Tewari, the boundaries did not match with the original title deed available in the Sub-Registrar's office. and competent to create equitable mortgage by deposit of the original title deed No. 7586 dated 05.8.1986. Investigation revealed that this title deed deposited with the Bank was fake and fabricated. During the subsequent search conducted by another panel Advocate Shri Jaivardhan Tewari, the boundaries did not match with the original title deed available in the Sub-Registrar's office. (xvii) That in the case of Guarantors Shri Uma Shanker, as per the report dated 15.5.2009 of the panel Advocate Amitabh Sharma, it is mentioned that he is the absolute owner of the property at House No. 270/4, Jain nagar, Mauza Tapa Khurd, Tehsil and District Firozabad, area 106.59 sq. mts. And is competent to create equitable mortgage by deposit of the original title deed No. 2865 dated 09.5.2000. This title deed deposited with the Bank was fake and fabricated. During the subsequent search by another panel Advocate Shri Jaivardhan Tewari, it is revealed that the photograph of the seller, location of the property and the stamp duty did not match with the original title deed available in the Sub-Registrar's office. (xviii) That in the case of Guarantors Shri Ram Sewak, as per the report dated 15.5.2009 of the panel Advocate Amitabh Sharma, it is mentioned that he is the absolute owner of the property at Khasra Plot No. 409, Mauza Sukhmal Pur, Tehsil and District Firozabad, area of 118 sq. mts. and competent to create equitable mortgage by deposit of the original title deed No. 1683 dated 28.3.1998. Investigation revealed that this title deed deposited with the bank was fake and fabricated. During investigation the Sub-Registrar, Firozabad has vide letter dated 08.8.2016 intimated that the boundaries do not match with the original title deed available in the office of Sub-Registrar. Further, there is difference in the typing font and the photograph of the seller. The numerals in the office copy of the title deed are in Hindi whereas the same are in English in the copy available with the Bank." 4. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant was in the panel of the advocates of the Regional Office of Bank of Baroda, Agra whereas the entire transaction pertaining to the grant of loan by the Firm M/s Bhole Flour Mills was conducted with the Shikohabad Branch of the Bank. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant was in the panel of the advocates of the Regional Office of Bank of Baroda, Agra whereas the entire transaction pertaining to the grant of loan by the Firm M/s Bhole Flour Mills was conducted with the Shikohabad Branch of the Bank. It is further submitted that the Shikohabad Branch collected all the documents from the borrower firm and forwarded the same to its Small and Medium Enterprises Loan Factory (SMELF) Agra, one of the specialized branch under Regional Office at Agra. 5. It is also submitted that the applicant gave his legal opinion, after exercise of due diligence and professional skill, on the basis of the photocopies of the title deeds that were sent to him by the SMELF of the Regional Office at Agra of the Bank of Baroda. 6. It is further urged that Bank of Baroda has issued auction notices dated 29.12.2017 and 08.1.2018 pertaining to the auction and sale of several of the same remaining properties that had been offered as equitable mortgage as prima/collateral security by the partner and guarantors of the Firms in question on 24.1.2018 and 30.1.2018 respectively. The aforesaid notices have been issued in pursuance of the proceedings under the SARFAESI Act and also include the property of Smt. Ram Murti Devi and Shri Ram Sevak. It is also submitted that allegations have been made in the impugned charge sheet to the effect that the title deeds of the guarantor Smt. Ram Murti and Shri Ram Sevak were found to be forged and fabricated and the boundaries also do not match with the original title deeds. Despite the said alleged discrepancy, the auction sale of the same properties is now being carried out which goes to show that no credibility can be assigned to the investigation conducted by the CBI. 7. Placing reliance upon the decision of Apex Court in Central Bureau of Investigation, Hyderabad Vs. K. Narayana Rao (Criminal Appeal No. 1460 of 2012) decided on 21.9.2012, Shri Satish Trivedi, learned Senior Advocate for the applicant submits that charge sheet as well as order taking cognizance should be set at naught insofar as the applicant is concerned. 8. Shri Satish Trivedi submits that the learned Special Judge has committed an error in law in taking cognizance of the matter and issuing non-bailable warrant against the applicant. 8. Shri Satish Trivedi submits that the learned Special Judge has committed an error in law in taking cognizance of the matter and issuing non-bailable warrant against the applicant. He also submits that there is nothing on record which suggests the complicity of the applicant in the crime. 9. On the other hand, Shri Gyan Prakash learned counsel appearing for the Central Bureau of Investigation has argued that during investigation the role of the applicant has been unearthed as a conspirator due to which the bank suffered a huge pecuniary loss to the bank. He has further drawn the attention of the Court towards the allegations and evidence found during the course of investigation by CBI in paragraphs ix, xi, xii, xiii, xv, xvi, xvii and xviii of the charge sheet as referred above. 10. Shri Gyan Prakash further submits that the learned Special Judge was right in taking cognizance and issuing non-bailable warrant as Section 467 of the Indian Penal Code is punishable with imprisonment of life. 11. So far as the submission of the learned counsel for the applicant that on the strength of the order of Apex Court charge sheet insofar as the applicant is concerned should be quashed is concerned, we find that the case cited by the learned counsel for the applicant does not have any direct bearing on the fact of the present case. The allegations in Central Bureau of Investigation, Hyderabad Vs. K. Narayana Rao (Supra) were only that Shri K. Narayana Rao has submitted false legal opinion to the Bank in respect of the housing loans in the capacity of a panel advocate and did not point out actual ownership of the properties. In the present case the allegations against the applicant are that properties of the guarantors in respect of which he has given his opinion, some of which have already been sold off by the owners, some of the guarantors have already expired and some of the title deeds which have been deposited are fake and fabricated. It is also mentioned in the charge sheet that aforesaid facts can easily be ascertained by the applicant by visiting the office of the Sub-Registrar. It is also mentioned in the charge sheet that aforesaid facts can easily be ascertained by the applicant by visiting the office of the Sub-Registrar. Moreover, certain other allegations have also been levelled against the applicant, which are quoted in the preceding paragraph and which, prima facie indicate the involvement of the applicant in the crime and the impugned charge sheet discloses a cognizable offence 12. Guidelines with regard to the exercise of jurisdiction by the Court under section 482 Cr.P.C. have been laid down by Apex Court from time to time. 13. In State of Himachal Pradesh Vs. Pirthi Chand and another, 1996 (2) SCC 37 , Supreme Court held thus: "It is thus settled law that the exercise of inherent power of the High Court is an exceptional one. Great care should be taken by the High Court before the embarking to scrutinise the FIR/charge-sheet/complaint. In deciding whether the case is rarest of rare cases to scuttle the prosecution in its inception, it first has to get into the grip of the matter whether the allegations constitute the offence. It must be remembered that FIR is only an initiation to move the machinery and to investigate into cognizable offence. After the investigation is conducted and the charge-sheet is laid the prosecution produces the statements of the witnesses recorded under section 161 of the Code in support of the charge- sheet. At that stage it is not the function of the Court to weigh the pros and cons of the prosecution case or to consider necessity of strict compliance of the provisions which are considered mandatory and its effect of non-compliance. It would be done after the trial is concluded. The Court has to prima facie consider from the averments in the charge-sheet and the statements of witness on the record in support thereof whether Court could take cognizance of the offence, on that evidence and proceed further with the trial. If it reaches a conclusion that no cognizable offence is made out no further act could be done except to quash the charge-sheet. If it reaches a conclusion that no cognizable offence is made out no further act could be done except to quash the charge-sheet. But only in exceptional cases, i.e., in rarest of rare cases of mala fide initiation of the proceedings to wreak private vengeance process of criminal is availed of in laying a complaint or FIR itself does not disclose at all any cognizable offence - the Court may embark upon the consideration thereof and exercise the power. When the remedy under Section 482 is available, the High Court would be loath and circumspect to exercise its extraordinary power under Article 226 since efficacious remedy under Section 482 of the Code is available. When the Court exercises its inherent power under Section 482 the prime consideration should only be whether the exercise of the power would advance the cause of justice or it would be an abuse of the process of the Court. When Investigating Officer spends considerable time to collect the evidence and places the charge-sheet before the Court, further action should not be short-circuited by resorting to exercise inherent power to quash the charge-sheet. The social stability and order requires to be regulated by proceeding against the offender as it is an offence against the society as a whole. This cardinal principle should always be kept in mind before the embarking upon exercising inherent power. The accused involved in an economic offence destabilises the economy and causes grave incursion on the economic planning of the State. When the legislature entrusts the power to the Police Officer to prevent organized commission of the offence or offences involving moral turpitude or crimes of grave nature and are entrusted with power to investigate into the crime in intractable terrains and secretive manner in concert, greater circumspection and care and caution should be borne in mind by the High Court when it exercises its inherent power. Otherwise, the social order and security would be put in jeopardy and grave risk. The accused will have field day in destabilising the economy of the State regulated under the relevant provisions." 14. In State of Bihar Vs. Otherwise, the social order and security would be put in jeopardy and grave risk. The accused will have field day in destabilising the economy of the State regulated under the relevant provisions." 14. In State of Bihar Vs. Rajendra Agrawalla, 1996 SCALE (1) 394, the Apex Court observed as under: "It has been held by this Court in several cases that the inherent power of the court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure should be very sparingly and cautiously used only when the court comes to the conclusion that there would be manifest injustice or there would be abuse of the process of the court, if such power is not exercised. So far as the order of cognizance by a Magistrate is concerned, the inherent power can be exercised when the allegations in the First Information Report or the complaint together with the other materials collected during investigation taken at their face value, do not constitute the offence alleged. At that stage it is not open for the court either to shift the evidence or appreciate the evidence and come to the conclusion that no prima facie case is made out." 15. In State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal, 1992 (51) SCC 335, Apex Court laid down certain broad tests to exercise the inherent power or extraordinary power of the High court. On the cost of repetition it is not necessary to reiterate the guidelines. Suffice it to state that they are only illustrative. The High Court should sparingly and only in exceptional cases, in other words, in rarest of rare cases, and not merely because it would be appealable to the learned Judge, be inclined to exercise the power to quash the FIR/Charge sheet/complaint. 16. In Rupan Deol Bajal Vs. Kanwar Pal Singh Gill, 1995 (7) JT 299 , (2000) 3 SCC 269 Apex Court reiterated the above view and held that when the complaint or charge sheet filed disclosed prima facie evidence, the court would not weigh at that stage and fine out whether offence could be made out. 17. These guidelines were reiterated by the Apex Court in Central Bureau of Investigation Vs. Duncans Agra Industries Limited, 1996 (5) SCC 592, Rajesh Bajaj Vs. State NCT of Delhi, 1999 (3) SCC 259 and Zandu Pharmaceuticals Works Limited Vs. Mohd. Sharaful Haque and another (2005) 1 SCC 122 . 18. 17. These guidelines were reiterated by the Apex Court in Central Bureau of Investigation Vs. Duncans Agra Industries Limited, 1996 (5) SCC 592, Rajesh Bajaj Vs. State NCT of Delhi, 1999 (3) SCC 259 and Zandu Pharmaceuticals Works Limited Vs. Mohd. Sharaful Haque and another (2005) 1 SCC 122 . 18. In M/s Medchl Chemicals and Pharma P limited Vs. M/s Biological E. Limited and others, (Special Leave Petition (Crl) No. 1971 of 1999, decided on 25.2.2000, Apex Court held thus: "Exercise of jurisdiction under the inherent power as envisaged in Section 482 of the code to have the complaint or the charge sheet quashed is an exception rather a rule and the case for quashing at the initial stage must have to be treated as rarest of rare so as not to scuttle the prosecution. With the lodgment of First Information Report the ball is set to roll and thenceforth the law takes its own course and the investigation ensues in accordance with the provisions of law. The jurisdiction as such is rather limited and restricted and its undue expansion is neither practicable nor warranted." 19. In view of the aforesaid pronouncements of Apex Court, we are of the view that this case does not fall within the ambit of rarest of rare case and we are not inclined to exercise our inherent jurisdiction in favour of the applicant. 20. Now coming to the next argument of Shri Trivedi, learned Senior Counsel for the applicant that the order taking cognizance should quashed. 21. Two alternative modes in which the criminal law can be set into motion are; by filing of information with the police under Section 154 of the Code or upon receipt of a complaint or information by a Magistrate. The former would lead to investigation by the police and may culminate in a police report under section 173 of the Code on the basis whereof cognizance may be taken by the Magistrate under Section 190(1)(b) of the code. In the latter case, the Magistrate may either order investigation by the police under Section 156(3) of the code or himself hold an inquiry under Section 202 of the Code before taking cognizance of the offence under Section 190(1) (1) or (c), as the case may be, read with section 204 of the Code. In the latter case, the Magistrate may either order investigation by the police under Section 156(3) of the code or himself hold an inquiry under Section 202 of the Code before taking cognizance of the offence under Section 190(1) (1) or (c), as the case may be, read with section 204 of the Code. Once the Magistrate takes cognizance of the offence he may proceed to try the offender (except where the case is transferred under Section 191 or commit for trial under Section 209 of the Code) if the offence is triable exclusively by a Court of Sessions. Once cognizance of an offence is taken, it becomes the duty of the Court to find out as to who are the real offender and if the Court finds that apart from the persons sent up by the police, some other persons are also involved, it is its duty to proceed against those persons by summoning them because the summoning of the additional accused is part of the proceeding initiated by it taking cognizance of the offence. 22. After cognizance is taken under Section 190(1) of the Code, in warrant cases the court is required to frame a charge containing particulars as to the time and place of the alleged offence and the person (if any) against whom or thing, if any, in respect of which, it was committed. But before framing the charge, Section 227 of the Code provides that if, upon consideration of the record of the case and the documents submitted therewith, and after hearing the submissions of the accused and the prosecution in this behalf, the Judge considers that there is not sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused, he shall discharge the accused and record his reasons for so doing. However, if the Judge is of the opinion that there is a ground for presuming that the accused has committed an offence, he will proceed to frame a charge and record the plea of the accused as provided under Section 228 of the Code. It becomes immediately clear that only for limited purpose of deciding whether or not to frame a charge against the accused, the Judge would be required to examine the record of the case and the documents submitted therewith, which would comprise the police report, the statements of witnesses recorded under Section 161 of the Code. 23. It becomes immediately clear that only for limited purpose of deciding whether or not to frame a charge against the accused, the Judge would be required to examine the record of the case and the documents submitted therewith, which would comprise the police report, the statements of witnesses recorded under Section 161 of the Code. 23. Apex Court in Deputy Controller of Imports and Exports Vs. Roshanlal Agarwal and others, (2003) 4 SCC 139 has held as under: "It is well settled that notwithstanding the opinion of the police, a Magistrate is empowered to take cognizance if the material on record makes out a case for the said purpose. The investigation is the exclusive domain of the police. The taking of cognizance of the offence is an area exclusively within the domain of a Magistrate. At this Stage, the magistrate has to be satisfied whether there is sufficient ground for proceeding and not whether there is sufficient ground for conviction. Whether the evidence is adequate for supporting the conviction, can be determined only at the trial and not at the stage of inquiry. At the stage of issuing process to the accused, the Magistrate is not required to record reasons." 24. A three Judge Bench in M/s India Carat Private Limited Vs. State of Karnataka and another, 1989 AIR 885 after analyzing the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, referred to the decisions in Abhinandan Jha Vs. Dinesh Mishra, AIR 1968 SC 117 and H.S. Bains Vs. State, (1980) 4 SCC 631 and observed that the position is, therefore, now well settled that upon receipt of a police report under section 173(2) of the Code, a Magistrate is entitled to take cognizance of an offence under Section 190(1)9b) of the Code even if the police report is to the effect that no case is made out against the accused. The Magistrate can take into account the statement of the witnesses examined by the police during the investigation and take cognizance of the offence complained of and order the issue of process to the accused. 25. In Kanti Bhadra Shah Vs. State of West Bengal, 2000 (1) SCC 722 the Apex Court has pointed out that the legislature has stressed the need to record reasons in certain situations such as dismissal of a complaint without issuing process. 25. In Kanti Bhadra Shah Vs. State of West Bengal, 2000 (1) SCC 722 the Apex Court has pointed out that the legislature has stressed the need to record reasons in certain situations such as dismissal of a complaint without issuing process. There is no such legal requirement imposed on a Magistrate for passing detailed order while issuing summons. 26. A Five Judge Bench of Apex Court in Dharam Pal and others Vs. State of Haryana and another, (2014(3 SCC 306 held thus: "This takes us to the next question as to whether under Section 209, the Magistrate was required to take cognizance of the offence before committing the case to the Court of Sessions. It is well settled that cognizance if an offence can only be taken once. In the event, a Magistrate takes cognizance of the offence and then commits the case to the Court of Sessions, the question of taking fresh cognizance of the offence and, therefore, proceed to issue summons, is not in accordance with law. If cognizance is to be taken of the offence, it could be taken either by the Magistrate or by the Court of Session. The language of Section 193 of the code very clearly indicates that once the case is committed to the Court of Session by the learned Magistrate, the Court of Session assumes original jurisdiction and all that goes with the assumption of such jurisdiction. The provisions of Section 209 will, therefore, have to be understood as the learned Magistrate playing a passive role in committing the case to the Court of Session on finding from the police report that the case was triable by the Court of Sessions. Nor can there by any question of part cognizance being taken by the Magistrate and part cognizance being taken by the learned Sessions Judge." 27. In view of the aforesaid settled principles of law, we are not inclined either to quash the charge sheet or the cognizance order and the non-bailable warrant. Hence, quashing of the same is hereby refused. 28 After passing of the aforesaid order, Shri Satish Trivedi, learned Senior Counsel for the applicant prayed that the non-bailable warrant may be stayed for stipulated period as the applicant undertakes to appear before the court concerned. 29. Hence, quashing of the same is hereby refused. 28 After passing of the aforesaid order, Shri Satish Trivedi, learned Senior Counsel for the applicant prayed that the non-bailable warrant may be stayed for stipulated period as the applicant undertakes to appear before the court concerned. 29. In view of the said prayer of the learned counsel for the applicant, it is provided that non-bailable warrant issued against the applicant shall be kept in abeyance for a period of two weeks from today. 30. The application stands disposed of.