Sec.482

well the stay will be operational from the day of last proceeding meaning thereby the previous proceedings recorded will remain intact but will not be operational till the stay orders are there. if the stay is vacated the proceedings shall commence from the same from the same situation. yes surities can be discharged if the suerty moves an application in that case the accused will have to furnish fresh sureties.

Suppose case has been stayed and sureties are released. When new sureties will be requried :

on vacation of stay or

whether existing sureties will be discharged only on introduction of new sureties

Stay of proceedings and discharge of surety are two different things. Stay operates from the date of order.

Yes. A surety is discharged only if alternative is made by teh accused.

the stay will operate from date of order and as on that date the sureties have been given.

Whether the magistrate will discharge the sureties only on introduction of new sureties.

or will sureties  be discharged only on introduction of new sureties

or new sureties will be required only on vaccation of stay

On the basis of  this question , your another question regarding arguing your case yourself  is can be answered more suitably by advising that you should not argue your case in person.

However, it appears in this query that the high court has stayed the proceedings in the case. if so, the court bellow will not proceed further unless the stay order is revoked or application u/s 482 is dismissed or the  high court directs otherwise. If  proceedings are not quashed by the high court, it  will continue after revocation of stay order, from the stage where it is on the date of stay order.

 

Stay  has  to  be  Vacated .

In the case of Rakesh Puri and another Vs. State of U.P. and another 2006 (56) ACC 910, the following observations have been made by this Court:-
"To sum up the discussions made above it is clear that the alleged accused has no right to challenge an order passed under section 156(3) Cr.P.C. at pre-cognizance stage by a Magistrate and no revision lay against such an order at the instance of the alleged accused under Section 397(1) Cr.P.C. being barred by section 397(2) Cr.P.C. nor at his instance an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is maintainable for the simple reason that if cognizable offence is disclosed in an application filed by the aggrieved person, then his such an application must be investigated to bring culprits to books and not to thwart his attempt to get the FIR registered by rejecting such an application which will not amount to securing the ends of justice but will amount to travesty of it."


9. Similar view has been expressed by this Court in the case of Smt. Rekha Verma and others Vs. State of U.P. and others 2007(57) ACC 241 in which, it is held that order passed under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. to direct registration of the case is not revisable and application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. also is not maintainable.

Another  Case 

 

Hope  u  Get the  Point Right  Dear.

 

Originally posted by :Dr. V.N. Tripathi
"	On the basis of  this question , your another question regarding arguing your case yourself  is can be answered more suitably by advising that you should not argue your case in person. However, it appears in this query that the high court has stayed the proceedings in the case. if so, the court bellow will not proceed further unless the stay order is revoked or application u/s 482 is dismissed or the  high court directs otherwise. If  proceedings are not quashed by the high court, it  will continue after revocation of stay order, from the stage where it is on the date of stay order.	"

 

Please  Refer  my earlier  Reply which would  throw ample  light  on your question  The  Section 482  under CRPC  has  been quoted in  as under  The Section does not confer any new power on the High Court. It only saves the inherent power which the Court possessed before the enactment of the Code. It envisages three circumstances under which the inherent jurisdiction may be exercised, namely, (i) to give effect to an order under the Code, (ii) to prevent abuse of the process of court, and (iii) to otherwise secure the ends of justice. It is neither possible nor desirable to lay down any inflexible rule which would govern the exercise of inherent jurisdiction. No legislative enactment dealing with procedure can provide for all cases that may possibly arise. Courts, therefore, have inherent powers apart from express provisions of law which are necessary for proper discharge of functions and duties imposed upon them by law. That is the doctrine which finds expression in the section which merely recognizes and preserves inherent powers of the High Courts. All courts, whether civil or criminal possess, in the absence of any express provision, as inherent in their constitution, all such powers as are necessary to do the right and to undo a wrong in course of administration of justice on the principle "quando lex aliquid alicui concedit, concedere videtur et id sine quo res ipsae esse non potest" (when the law gives a person anything it gives him that without which it cannot exist). While exercising powers under the section, the court does not function as a court of appeal or revision. Inherent jurisdiction under the section though wide has to be exercised sparingly, carefully and with caution and only when such exercise is justified by the tests specifically laid down in the section itself. It is to be exercised ex debito justitiae to do real and substantial justice for the administration of which alone courts exist. Authority of the court exists for advancement of justice and if any attempt is made to abuse that authority so as to produce injustice, the court has power to prevent abuse. It would be an abuse of process of the court to allow any action which would result in injustice and prevent promotion of justice. In exercise of the powers court would be justified to quash any proceeding if it finds that initiation/continuance of it amounts to abuse of the process of court or quashing of these proceedings would otherwise serve the ends of justice.”       Originally posted by :Dr. V.N. Tripathi     Minu Kumari and Anr. v. State of Bihar and Ors. AIR 1986 SC 1937
"	On the basis of  this question , your another question regarding arguing your case yourself  is can be answered more suitably by advising that you should not argue your case in person. However, it appears in this query that the high court has stayed the proceedings in the case. if so, the court bellow will not proceed further unless the stay order is revoked or application u/s 482 is dismissed or the  high court directs otherwise. If  proceedings are not quashed by the high court, it  will continue after revocation of stay order, from the stage where it is on the date of stay order.	"