Allahabad High Court
Jitendra Gupta @ Bablu vs State Of U.P. And Another on 28 April, 2022
Bench: Shekhar Kumar Yadav
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Court No. - 87
Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 724 of 2022
Petitioner :- Jitendra Gupta @ Bablu
Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another
Counsel for Petitioner :- Puneet Bhadauria
Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.
Hon'ble Shekhar Kumar Yadav,J.
;g nkf.Md ;kfpdk] ;kph dh vksj ls okn la[;k 312 o"kZ 2018] ¼Jherh y{eh izfr ftrsUnz xqIrk mQZ cCyw½ esa fo}ku iz/kku U;k;k/kh'k] ifjokfjd U;k;ky;] vkSjS;k }kjk ikfjr vkns'k fnukad 21&10&2021 dks fujLr djus gsrq ;ksftr dh x;h gS ftlds }kjk ;kph ds fo:} fcuk tekurh; okj.V ,oa olwyh okj.V fuxZr fd;k x;k gSA
eSaus ;kph ds fo}ku vf/koDrk dks foLrkjiwoZd lquk ,oa i=koyh dk lE;d ifj'khyu fd;kA
;kph ds fo}ku vf/koDrk }kjk eq[; :i ls ;g rdZ izLrqr fd;k x;k fd /kkjk 125 na0 iz0 la0 ds vUrxZr tks Hkj.k iks"k.k dh /kujkf'k fu/kkZfjr dh x;h gS mlds lEca/k esa mls dksbZ vkifRr ugha gS vkSj mldks nsus ds fy, rS;kj gSSA bl izdkj ;kph ds fo}ku vf/koDrk }kjk ek= ;g ;kpuk dh x;h gS fd fo}ku v/khuLFk U;k;ky; }kjk fuxZr fcuk tekurh; okj.V dks fujLr fd;k tk,A ;g Hkh rdZ j[kk x;k fd /kkjk 125 na0 iz0 la0 ds vUrxZr ekeys esa fcuk tekurh; okj.V tkjh ugha fd;k tk ldrk gSSA vius rdZ ds leFkZu esa 2020 ¼2½ ,-Mh-ts- 171 flfoy fe0 fjV ;kfpdk la[;k 8511 o"kZ 2019 jkds'k dqekj izfr jkT; mRrj izns'k ,oa vU; ds izLrj 8 esa nh x;h fof/k O;oLFkk izLrqr dh gS tks fuEuor gS%&
"8. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Auraiya dated 20th September, 2019 is wholly illegal as he has no jurisdiction to issue non-bailable warrant against the petitioner under Section 125 (3) Cr.P.C. for execution of his order awarding maintenance allowance to opposite party no.2 and his daughter Section 125 (3) Cr.P.C. specifically provides for issuance of a warrant for levying the amount issued in the manner provided for levying fines. Learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to Section 421 Cr.P.C., which enacts the provisions regarding issuance of warrant for levying of fine. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that when a specific procedure has been provided for execution of the order of maintenance of Family Court, the issuance of Non-Bailable Warrant by the Principal Judge, Family Court against the petitioner is illegal and, therefore, the impugned order is liable to be quashed. In support of his aforesaid submissions, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon the following judgments of Gauhati High Court, Calcutta High Court and Punjab and Haryana High Court:
1. Hazi Abdul Khaleque Vs. Mustt. Samsun Nehar, 1991 CriLJ, 1843;
2. Dipankar BAnerjee Vs. Tanuja Banerjee reported in 1998 CriLJ 907; and
3. Om Prakash @ Parkash Vs. Vidya Devi reported in 1992 CriLJ 658."
;kph ds fo}ku vf/koDrk }kjk U;k;ky; dks ;g fo'okl fnyk;k x;k fd /kkjk 125 na0 iz0 la0 ds vUrxZr izLrqr ekeys esa Hkj.k iks"k.k dh tks /kujkf'k fu/kkZfjr dh x;h gS mldk iw.kZ :i ls vuqikyu 30 fnu ds vUnj ;kph }kjk lqfuf'pr dj fn;k tk;sxkA ;kph ds fo}ku vf/koDrk }kjk ;g Hkh dFku fd;k x;k fd ;fn ;kph }kjk mDr dk vuqikyu ugha fd;k tkrk gS rks fo}ku v/khuLFk U;k;ky; dks ;g LorU=rk jgsxh fd og mlds fo:} fof/kd dk;Zokgh dj ldrs gSaA
mijksDr vk/kkj ij ;g ;kfpdk Lohdkj fd;s tkus ;ksX; gSA
rnuqlkj ;g ;kfpdk Lohdkj dh tkrh gSA
fo}ku v/khuLFk U;k;ky; }kjk ikfjr iz'uxr vkns'k fnukad 21&10&2021 fujLr fd;k tkrk gSA ;kph dks funsZf'kr fd;k tkrk gS fd og fo}ku v/khuLFk U;k;ky; }kjk fu/kkZfjr dh x;h Hkj.k iks"k.k dh /kujkf'k nks cjkcj fd'rksa esa foi{kh la[;k 2 dks vnk djsxkA lkFk gh ;g Hkh vknsf'kr fd;k tkrk gS fd izFke fd'r fnukad 10 ebZ] 2022 ,oa nwljh fd'r fnukad 10]twu] 2022 dks ns; gksxhA
mDr dk vuqikyu u djus ij ;kph ds fo:} fof/kd dk;Zokgh djus gsrq fo}ku v/khuLFk U;k;ky; Lora= gSA
Order Date :- 28.4.2022
A.
