Presence of accused is not required for warrant cancellation


 

Bombay high court-It is not necessary for accused to remain present before Magistrate for warrant cancellation

 
Bombay High Court: Coming down heavily on the lower courts for blindly rejecting applications of cancellation of arrest warrants when the accused is not present, a bench comprising of Hon’ble M.L Tahilyani, J has ruled that in such situations, orders must be passed only on the basis of merit without insisting on the appearance of the Applicant/accused. The Court held that the view taken by a few of the Magistrates particularly in the city of Bombay was not correct and it was high time that Magistrates note that the appearance of the applicant/accused is not necessary when application for cancellation of warrant is made.
In the present case, the Court was hearing an application filed by the applicant who had been accused under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and a non-bailable warrant had been issued against him by a magistrate's court for not attending proceedings. The lawyer of the accused approached the court to cancel the arrest warrant against him, assuring the court that he would be present when the case is heard next. But the plea was rejected on the grounds that accused was not present to cancel his warrant. The Court observed that since the applicant was ready to appear before the Magistrate after cancellation of warrant, and that there was reasonable apprehension that he might be arrested if he came to court, the Magistrate should have heard the application on the basis of merit. The Court while disposing of the writ petition, cancelled the non bailable warrant against him and ordered that the copy of this order to be circulated among all the additional metropolitan magistrates and metropolitan magistrates. [Arunkumar N. Chaturvedi vs. State of Maharashtra, Writ Petition No. 4429 of 2013, decided on 24th December, 2013]IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION 
4429.13.wp
WRIT PETITION  NO. 4429 OF  2013
Arunkumar N. Chaturvedi

..Petitioner
               Vs.
ig
Mr.Rishi Bhuta,for the Petitioner.
..Respondents
The State of Maharashtra and Anr
                           
              
     

CORAM :­ M. L. TAHALIYANI, J. 
DATE     :­ DECEMBER 24, 2013.

Total likes : 2 times

 
Reply   
 
advocate

THANKS A LOT SIR FOR VERY HELP FULL JUDGMENT.

 
Reply   
 



Thank you sir for post..... Really helpful
 
Reply   
 

thank you for this post , i really need this. thank you.

 
Reply   
 

LEAVE A REPLY


    

Your are not logged in . Please login to post replies

Click here to Login / Register  



 

Search Forum:








×

  LAWyersclubindia Menu