Vishnupal Singh And 3 Others vs. State Of U.P.

Held

The Court held that the application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. was misconceived. The reasoning was that the applicants themselves had their names struck out from the application for recall of the non-bailable warrant before the lower court. Consequently, no application for recall was pending before the lower court on behalf of the applicants Vishnupal Singh, Shivam, and Amit Agnihotri. Since no application was moved before the lower court for recall of the warrant concerning these applicants, they had no recourse to approach the High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. on this ground. The Court found no basis for the applicants to seek relief from the High Court when their own procedural steps led to the lack of an order from the lower court. The ratio decidendi is that a party cannot seek High Court intervention under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for an order that was not sought from the lower court due to their own withdrawal or omission.

Facts

The applicants, Vishnupal Singh, Shivam, Amit Agnihotri, and Birendra Pal, sought to quash a non-bailable warrant issued against them on September 24, 2019. This warrant stemmed from GST No. 36 of 2013, arising out of Case Crime No. 359 of 2012, under Section 2/3 of the Gangster Act. The applicants claimed they, along with other accused Deepak Pal and Jai Narain, had jointly applied to the lower court on October 3, 2019, for the recall of the warrant. The lower court recalled the warrant for Deepak Pal and Jai Narain but passed no order regarding the applicants. The High Court noted that the names of Vishnupal Singh, Shivam, and Amit Agnihotri were struck out from the application before the lower court, leaving the recall application only for Deepak and Jai Narain.

Key Issues

1. Whether the application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing the non-bailable warrant is maintainable when the applicants' names were struck out from the recall application filed before the lower court, and no application for recall was subsequently moved on their behalf before the lower court? Arguments: Petitioner/Applicant: The applicants argued that they had jointly moved an application for recall of the non-bailable warrant before the learned court below. They contended that the court below had recalled the warrant for some co-accused but failed to pass any order regarding their grievance, necessitating the present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. They asserted they had no other option but to approach the High Court. Revenue/State: The State, through the learned A.G.A., did not present any specific arguments recorded in the judgment. However, the Court's reasoning implies the State's position was that the application was misconceived due to the applicants' own actions of having their names struck out.