Nishant@Bunty Tyagi vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2025 Latest Caselaw 3062 MP

Madhya Pradesh High Court

Nishant@Bunty Tyagi vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 20 January, 2025

Author: Milind Ramesh Phadke

Bench: Milind Ramesh Phadke

                                                                1                              MCRC-1926-2025
                                             IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                                           AT GWALIOR
                                                        MCRC No. 1926 of 2025
                                     (NISHANT@BUNTY TYAGI Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS )



                           Dated : 20-01-2025
                                  Shri R.K. Sharma - Senior Advocate with Shri Atul Gupta - Advocate for
                           the petitioner.
                                  Shri Vijay Sundaram - Panel Lawyer for the respondents/State.

Shri Vijay Dutta Sharma - Advocate for the respondent No.3.

Issue notice.

Shri Vijay Dutta Sharma - Advocate accepts notice on behalf of respondent No.3 and prays to supply copy of the petition alongwith the documents annexed thereto to him. He further prays for two weeks' time to argue the matter.

Prayer is accepted.

Learned Counsel for the petitioner is directed to supply copy of the petition alongwith the documents annexed thereto to Shri Vijay Dutta Sharma - Advocate for the respondent No.3, within a period of four working days.

Heard on the question of interim relief.

Shri R.K. Sharma - learned Senior Advocate with Shri Atul Gupta - Advocate for the petitioner, while placing reliance on the judgment passed by the

Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Inder Mohan Goswami & Another vs. State of Uttaranchal & Others reported in AIR 2008 SC 251, has argued that in complaint cases, at the first instance, the Court should direct serving of the summons alongwith the copy of the complaint and if the accused seems to be avoiding the summons, the Court, in the second instance, should issue bailable warrant, thereafter, in the third instance, when the Court is fully satisfied that the

2 MCRC-1926-2025 accused is avoiding proceedings of the Courts intentionally, the process of issuance of the non-bailable warrant should be resorted to, as personal liberty is paramount, therefore, we caution Courts at the first and second instance to refrain from issuing non-bailable warrants.

It was further submitted that as per Section 204 of Cr.P.C., warrant may be issued by the Court if it deems fit and the same has to be issued only if the same is found fit/expedient by the Court. Herein case, there was no necessity for the Court below to have issued straightway arrest warrant against the petitioner, which is illegal. The proper course would have been firstly to issue summon to the petitioner. It was, thus, prayed that the impugned order herein is per se illegal and therefore, deserves to be stayed till final decision of the present petition.

After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner and perusing the record

available before this Court, it is directed that effect and operation of the impugned order dated 04.11.2024 (Annexure P/1) passed in Case No.167 of 2023 (RCT) by which warrant of arrest issued against the petitioner is hereby stayed till next date of hearing.

List the matter after two weeks.

(MILIND RAMESH PHADKE) JUDGE

pwn*