Location via proxy:   [ UP ]  
[Report a bug]   [Manage cookies]                
Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 708 views

    Arun Kumar Chaturvedi

    Uploaded by

    mayank khatri
    The petitioner was accused in a criminal case regarding a bounced check. A warrant was issued for the petitioner's arrest after he failed to appear in court. The petitioner's lawyer applied to cancel the warrant, but the application was rejected as the petitioner was not present personally. The high court ruled that the lower court should have considered the cancellation application on its merits instead of insisting on the petitioner's presence. The high court cancelled the warrant against the petitioner and directed him to appear on the next hearing date. The order was also circulated to lower courts to note that an accused's personal appearance is not required when a lawyer applies to cancel an arrest warrant.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Arun Kumar Chaturvedi

    Uploaded by

    mayank khatri
    708 views3 pages
    The petitioner was accused in a criminal case regarding a bounced check. A warrant was issued for the petitioner's arrest after he failed to appear in court. The petitioner's lawyer applied to cancel the warrant, but the application was rejected as the petitioner was not present personally. The high court ruled that the lower court should have considered the cancellation application on its merits instead of insisting on the petitioner's presence. The high court cancelled the warrant against the petitioner and directed him to appear on the next hearing date. The order was also circulated to lower courts to note that an accused's personal appearance is not required when a lawyer applies to cancel an arrest warrant.

    Original Title

    arun kumar chaturvedi

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The petitioner was accused in a criminal case regarding a bounced check. A warrant was issued for the petitioner's arrest after he failed to appear in court. The petitioner's lawyer applied to cancel the warrant, but the application was rejected as the petitioner was not present personally. The high court ruled that the lower court should have considered the cancellation application on its merits instead of insisting on the petitioner's presence. The high court cancelled the warrant against the petitioner and directed him to appear on the next hearing date. The order was also circulated to lower courts to note that an accused's personal appearance is not required when a lawyer applies to cancel an arrest warrant.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    708 views3 pages

    Arun Kumar Chaturvedi

    Uploaded by

    mayank khatri
    The petitioner was accused in a criminal case regarding a bounced check. A warrant was issued for the petitioner's arrest after he failed to appear in court. The petitioner's lawyer applied to cancel the warrant, but the application was rejected as the petitioner was not present personally. The high court ruled that the lower court should have considered the cancellation application on its merits instead of insisting on the petitioner's presence. The high court cancelled the warrant against the petitioner and directed him to appear on the next hearing date. The order was also circulated to lower courts to note that an accused's personal appearance is not required when a lawyer applies to cancel an arrest warrant.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    You are on page 1of 3

    4429.13.

    wp

    IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
    CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION 
    WRIT PETITION  NO. 4429 OF  2013

    Arunkumar N. Chaturvedi   ..Petitioner
                   Vs.
    The State of Maharashtra and Anr ..Respondents

    Mr.Rishi Bhuta,for the Petitioner.
    Mr. A. R. Patil, APP,for the Respondent State.

                                CORAM :­ M. L. TAHALIYANI, J. 
                         DATE     :­ DECEMBER 24, 2013.

    P. C.:
    1 Heard the learned counsel Mr. Rishi Bhuta for the Petitioner and 
    the learned Additional P. P. Mr. Patil, for the State of Maharashtra.

    2 The Applicant is accused no.2 in Criminal Case No.1304/SS/2006 
    pending in the Court of Metropolitan Magistrate, 7th Court, Dadar for the 
    offence   punishable   under   Section   138   of   Negotiable   Instruments   Act. 
    The warrant has been issued against the Applicant as he was absent on 
    the   date   of   hearing.     The   Applicant   had   applied   for   cancellation   of 
    warrant through his advocate.   It is submitted that the application has 
    been rejected by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate on the ground that 
    the Applicant was not present when the application for cancellation of 
    warrant was made before the Magistrate.

    Aswale 1/3

    ::: Downloaded on - 01/12/2021 10:22:47 :::


    4429.13.wp

    3 The   judgments   of   Andhrapradesh   High   Court   and   Delhi   High 


    Court were cited before the learned Magistrate.  The learned Magistrate 
    without considering those judgments has stated that the said judgments 
    were not binding upon him.

    4 Since   the   Applicant   was   ready   to   appear   before   the   Magistrate 


    after   cancellation   of   warrant   and   since   there   was   reasonable 
    apprehension in the mind of the Applicant that he might be put beyond 
    the   bars   if   he   appeared   before     cancellation   of   warrant,   the   learned 
    Magistrate should have considered the application on merits.

    5 In my considered opinion, there is no law that the accused shall 
    personally   remain   present   for   cancellation   of   warrant.     If   the   lawyer 
    makes an application for cancellation of warrant, the same needs to be 
    considered on merits by the learned Magistrate without insisting the for 
    appearance   of   the   Applicant/accused.     It   is   noted   by   this   Court   that 
    many  Writ  Petitions are  filed in  this  Court   only because  the  learned 
    Magistrate straight way   take a view that warrant cannot be cancelled 
    unless accused appears before the Court.  The view taken by a few of the 
    Magistrates   particularly   in   the   city   of   Bombay,   in   my   opinion,   is   not 
    correct. It is high time that this Court lets the Magistrate note that  the 
    appearance of the applicant/accused is not necessary when application 
    for cancellation of warrant is made.   In the circumstances, I pass the 
    following order:­
    (I) The   non­bailable   warrant   issued   against   the   Applicant   stands 
    cancelled.
    (II) The Applicant shall appear before the Trial Court on next date of 

    Aswale 2/3

    ::: Downloaded on - 01/12/2021 10:22:47 :::


    4429.13.wp

    hearing.
    (III) The   copy   of   this   order     shall   be   forwarded   to   the   Chief 
    Metropolitan   Magistrate,   Bombay   for   being   circulated   to   all   the 
    Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate and Metropolitan Magistrate.
    (IV) The Writ Petition stands disposed of.

    ( M. L. TAHALIYANI , J.)

    Aswale 3/3

    ::: Downloaded on - 01/12/2021 10:22:47 :::

    You might also like