[Cites 6, Cited by 0]
Uttarakhand High Court
C528/9/2026 on 13 February, 2026
2026:UHC:941
Office Notes,
reports, orders
or proceedings
SL.
Date or directions COURT'S OR JUDGE'S ORDERS
No.
and Registrar's
order with
Signatures
C-528 No.8 of 2026
With
C-528 No.9 of 2026
Hon'ble Alok Mahra, J.
Mr. Alok Kumar, learned counsel
for the applicant.
2. Mr. Shashikant Shandilya, learned
counsel for respondent.
3. The present C-528 application has
been filed by the applicant seeking
quashing of the impugned order dated
22.06.2023 passed by the learned
Judicial Magistrate 1st, Dehradun, and
the order dated 09.12.2025 passed by
the learned 4th Additional Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Dehradun in Criminal Case
No. 3267 of 2015. By the said orders, a
non-bailable warrant was issued
against the applicant and notices were
issued to the sureties. Subsequently,
proceedings under Section 83 Cr.P.C.
were also initiated against the
applicant, along with the non-bailable
warrant and notice to the sureties.
4. Since the controversy involved in
both the C-528 applications is identical
and arises out of the same criminal
proceedings, both the applications are
being decided together by this common
judgment and order.
5. Learned counsel for the applicant
would submit that an F.I.R. was lodged
against the applicant under Sections
406, 420, 504 and 506 I.P.C. After
completion of investigation, the
Investigating Officer submitted charge-
sheet against the applicant. It is further
2026:UHC:941
submitted that the applicant remained
in judicial custody from 21.04.2016
and was enlarged on bail on
09.08.2016. It is also submitted that
respondent no. 2 has instituted two
complaint cases against the applicant
under Section 138 of the Negotiable
Instruments Act, 1881.
6. Learned counsel would further
submit that on 22.06.2023, due to lack
of communication by his counsel
regarding the date fixed before the trial
court, the applicant could not appear,
whereupon the learned Judicial
Magistrate 1st, Dehradun issued non-
bailable warrants against the applicant
and also issued notice to his sureties. It
is further submitted that subsequently,
in the absence of the applicant as well
as his counsel on 09.12.2025, the
learned 4th Additional Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Dehradun proceeded to
pass an order under Section 83 Cr.P.C.
along with issuance of non-bailable
warrants against the applicant.
7. Learned counsel for the applicant
contends that the non-appearance of
the applicant was neither deliberate nor
intentional. The applicant was under
the bona fide impression that his
counsel was representing him and
attending the proceedings before the
trial court. It is submitted that the
applicant came to know about the
issuance of non-bailable warrants only
in December, 2025. Hence, it is prayed
that the impugned orders issuing non-
bailable warrants and proceedings
under Section 83 Cr.P.C. be quashed.
8. Per contra, learned counsel for the
respondent would vehemently oppose
2026:UHC:941
the submissions and submits that the
applicant has not approached this
Court with clean hands. It is contended
that the applicant had given a written
undertaking dated 08.04.2025 before
the learned Magistrate to pay a sum of
₹5,00,000/- to the complainant on or
before 20.05.2025. However, despite
such undertaking, the applicant neither
complied with the same nor cooperated
in the trial. It is further submitted that
similar undertakings have been given
by the applicant in other proceedings
as well, without adherence.
9. To this, learned counsel for the
applicant would submit that the
applicant is now ready and willing to
deposit the amount of ₹5,00,000/-
before the learned concerned
Magistrate in compliance with the
undertaking earlier furnished. It is
prayed that some reasonable time be
granted to enable the applicant to
deposit the said amount and till such
time, the execution of non-bailable
warrants issued against him be stayed.
10. Learned counsel for the
respondent, while not disputing the
prayer for grant of time, submits that
the same may be allowed only upon
condition that the applicant deposits
₹5,00,000/- within a stipulated period.
It is further prayed that the trial court
be directed to conclude the complaint
case expeditiously.
11. Having heard learned counsel for
the parties and upon consideration of
the facts and circumstances of the
case, particularly the submission made
on behalf of the applicant expressing
readiness to deposit ₹5,00,000/- in
2026:UHC:941
compliance of his earlier undertaking,
this Court deems it appropriate, in the
interest of justice, to grant limited
indulgence to the applicant.
12. Accordingly, it is directed that the
applicant shall deposit a sum of
₹5,00,000/- before the court concerned
on or before 27.02.2026. In the event of
such deposit within the stipulated
period, the non-bailable warrants
issued against the applicant shall
remain in abeyance and shall not be
executed. However, it is made clear that
in case of failure to deposit the
aforesaid amount within the time
granted, the impugned orders shall
revive automatically and it shall be
open to the court concerned to proceed
in accordance with law.
13. Considering that the complaint
case is pending since the year 2014,
the trial court is requested to make all
endeavour to conclude the proceedings
expeditiously, strictly in accordance
with law.
14. Subject to the aforesaid directions,
both the C-528 applications stand
disposed of.
15. Pending applications, if any, also
stand disposed of.
(Alok Mahra, J.)
13.02.2026
Mamta
