Kuldeep Chaudhary @ Monu Chaudhary vs. State Of U.P. And Another

Held

The Court refused the prayer to quash the entire proceedings of the criminal case. However, it provided relief by directing that if the applicant files an application for the recall of the order issuing the non-bailable warrant or moves an application for bail within four weeks from the date of the order, the concerned court shall consider such application and pass an appropriate order expeditiously. The Court also ordered that no coercive action shall be taken against the applicant for a period of four weeks. If the applicant fails to act within the stipulated time, the concerned court may adopt all coercive measures to ensure his appearance. The ratio decidendi is that while the court will not interfere with ongoing criminal proceedings at this stage, it will grant an opportunity to the accused to seek appropriate remedies before the trial court, such as applying for bail or recall of warrants, and will provide a limited period of protection from coercive action.

Facts

The applicant, Kuldeep Chaudhary @ Monu Chaudhary, filed an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking to quash a non-bailable warrant order dated April 28, 2005, issued by the Additional District Judge (GST) 26, Agra. This warrant was issued in GST No. 543 of 2002, related to a case crime no. 247 of 2002 under the U.P. Gangster and Anti Social Activities (Prevention) Act, pending before the same court. The applicant's primary submission was to be granted an opportunity to file an application for the recall of the non-bailable warrant or for bail. The learned AGA for the State had no objection to this prayer. The High Court refused to quash the proceedings.

Key Issues

1. Whether the non-bailable warrant order dated April 28, 2005, issued by the Additional District Judge (GST) 26, Agra, in GST No. 543 of 2002, should be quashed, and consequently, whether the proceedings of the criminal case should be stayed. Petitioner's contention: The applicant argued that the court concerned had issued a non-bailable warrant for his appearance and sought an opportunity to file an application for its recall or to move an application for bail. Revenue/State's contention: The learned AGA for the State had no objection to the applicant's prayer for an opportunity to file an application for recall of the warrant or for bail.