Sukhram S/O Ramji Lal vs State Of Rajasthan
2021 Latest Caselaw 1308 Raj/2

Citation : 2021 Latest Caselaw 1308 Raj/2
Judgement Date : 8 February, 2021

Rajasthan High Court

Sukhram S/O Ramji Lal vs State Of Rajasthan on 8 February, 2021

Bench: Mahendar Kumar Goyal

        HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
                    BENCH AT JAIPUR

        S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 1716/2020

Sukhram S/o Ramji Lal, R/o Thala Ka Bas, Badiyal Khurd, Tehsil
Baswa, District Dausa.

                                                          ----Accused-Petitioner

                                    Versus

1.     State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
                                                                  ....Respondent

2. Amar Singh S/o Gangaram, R/o Ranoli, Tehsil Todabhim, District Karauli.

                                               ----Complainant-Respondents


For Petitioner(s)           :   Mr. Hari Krishna Sharma with
                                Ms. Meenakshi Joshi
For Respondent(s)           :   Mr. F.R. Meena

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL Order

08/02/2021

This criminal miscellaneous petition under Section 482 CrPC

has been filed for quashing order dated 01.02.2020 passed by the

learned Revisional Court confirming the order dated 05.04.2018,

whereby the learned trial Court has taken cognizance against the

petitioner under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B IPC.

During course of arguments, learned counsel for the

petitioner confined his submission to the prayer that the non-

bailable warrants issued against him may be converted into

bailable warrants. Learned counsel relies on the judgments of the

Hon'ble Apex Court of India in cases of Inder Mohan Goswami

and another Vs. State of Uttranchal and Ors., (2007) 12

Supreme Court Cases 1 and Vikas Vs. State of Rajasthan,

(2014) 3 Supreme Court Cases 321 in support of his

submissions.

(2 of 3) [CRLMP-1716/2020]

Learned Public Prosecutor opposed the misc. petition.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the

record.

The Hon'ble Apex Court of India has, in case of Inder

Mohan Goswami (supra), held as under:-

"51. The issuance of non-bailable warrants involves interference with personal liberty. Arrest and imprisonment means deprivation of the most precious right of an individual. Therefore, the courts have to be extremely careful before issuing non-bailable warrants.

52. Just as liberty is precious for an individual so is the interest of the society in maintaining law and order. Both are extremely important for the survival of a civilized society. Sometimes in the larger interest of the Public and the State it becomes absolutely imperative to curtail freedom of an individual for a certain period, only then the non-bailable warrants should be issued.

When non-bailable warrants should be issued

53. Non-bailable warrant should be issued to bring a person to court when summons of bailable warrants would be unlikely to have the desired result. This could be when:

* it is reasonable to believe that the person will not voluntarily appear in court; or * the police authorities are unable to find the person to serve him with a summon; or * it is considered that the person could harm someone if not placed into custody immediately.

54. As far as possible, if the court is of the opinion that a summon will suffice in getting the appearance of the accused in the court, the summon or the bailable warrants should be preferred. The warrants either bailable or non- bailable should never be issued without proper scrutiny of facts and complete application of mind, due to the extremely serious consequences and ramifications which ensue on issuance of warrants. The court must very carefully examine whether the Criminal Complaint or FIR has not been filed with an oblique motive.

55. In complaint cases, at the first instance, the court should direct serving of the summons along with the copy of the complaint. If the accused seem to be avoiding the summons, the court, in the second instance should issue bailable- warrant. In the third instance, when the court is fully satisfied that the accused is avoiding the courts

(3 of 3) [CRLMP-1716/2020]

proceeding intentionally, the process of issuance of the non-bailable warrant should be resorted to. Personal liberty is paramount, therefore, we caution courts at the first and second instance to refrain from issuing non- bailable warrants.

56. The power being discretionary must be exercised judiciously with extreme care and caution. The court should properly balance both personal liberty and societal interest before issuing warrants. There cannot be any straight-jacket formula for issuance of warrants but as a general rule, unless an accused is charged with the commission of an offence of a heinous crime and it is feared that he is likely to tamper or destroy the evidence or is likely to evade the process of law, issuance of non- bailable warrants should be avoided."

The Hon'ble Apex Court of India has, in case of Vikas

(supra), held as under:-

"18. The court in all circumstances in complaint cases at the first instance should first prefer issuing summons or bailable warrant failing which a non-bailable warrant should be issued."

In view of the fact that the cognizance against the petitioner

has been taken in a private complaint and the law laid down by the

Hon'ble Apex Court of India in cases of Inder Mohan Goswami

(supra) and Vikas (supra), this Court modifies the order passed by

the learned trial Court dated 05.04.2018 to the extent of summoning

the petitioner through non-bailable warrants and directs that

summons be issued against the petitioner for securing his presence.