Mukesh And Another vs. State Of U.P. And Another

Facts

The applicants, Mukesh and another, filed an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash an order dated 02.01.2025. This order initiated non-bailable warrants and proceedings under Section 82 Cr.P.C. against the applicants. The proceedings stem from GST No. 654-A of 2010, titled State v. Mukesh & Ors, which arose from Case Crime No. 736 of 2009 under Section 2/3 of the U.P. Gangsters and Anti Social Activities (Prevention) Act, P.S. Sasni, District Aligarh. The applicants' counsel argued that the impugned order was against facts and law, and the applicants had no knowledge of the proceedings, leading to their non-appearance and the issuance of warrants. The State's counsel opposed the application.

Held

The Court considered the facts and circumstances of the matter. It directed that if the applicants appear before the trial court and move an appropriate application for recalling the impugned order, the same shall be decided expeditiously in accordance with law. For a period of 15 days or until the applicants file an application before the trial court, whichever is earlier, no coercive action shall be taken against the applicants. The Court also cautioned that it would not entertain fictitious and repetitive personal exemption applications, and if filed, they would be dismissed with reasonable costs. The application was disposed of accordingly. The specific finding on the validity of the impugned order itself, based on the applicants' claim of lack of knowledge, was not explicitly determined, but rather a procedural path for resolution was provided.

Key Issues

1. Whether the order dated 02.01.2025, initiating non-bailable warrants and proceedings under Section 82 Cr.P.C. against the applicants, is liable to be quashed on the grounds that the applicants had no knowledge of the proceedings and thus could not appear before the trial court? (Mixed question of law and fact, concerning principles of natural justice and procedural fairness under the Cr.P.C.). Petitioner's contention: The applicants argued that the impugned order was contrary to facts and law. They claimed they were unaware of the proceedings initiated against them, which prevented their appearance on the scheduled date, resulting in the issuance of non-bailable warrants. They relied on the principle that proceedings should not be initiated without proper notice or knowledge of the accused. Revenue's contention: The learned Additional Government Advocate (A.G.A.) opposed the application. The judgment does not record specific arguments or reliance on any provisions, circulars, or precedents by the State.