PRAMOD THUKRAL AND ORS. Vs. MOHAMMAD HANIF

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PRESENT petition is filed assailing the order dated 1.10.2014 passed by Judicial Magistrate, 1st, Rudrapur, District Udham Singh Nagar in Criminal Case No. 2119 of 2008, whereby learned Magistrate was pleased to issue non -bailable warrant against the accused/petitioner, herein. Vide order dated 29.11.2008, Judicial Magistrate, Rudrapur, Udham Singh Nagar was pleased to summon the petitioners (accused) on a private complaint for the offences punishable under Section 406, 504 and 506 IPC. Order dated 29.11.2008 was challenged before this Court in C -482 No. 304 of 2009. C -482 No. 304 of 2009 was allowed, vide judgment dated 6.8.2013, Annexure No. 2 to this petition. This Court, while placing reliance on the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of GHCL Employees Stock Option Trust Vs. India Infoline Limited : (2013) 4 SCC 505 has held that - "perusal of the impugned order (29.11.2008) would reveal that learned Magistrate has made absolutely no discussion to find out the prima facie case justifying the summoning of the accused. The impugned order seems to have been passed in a routine manner. Therefore, impugned order does not sustain in the eyes of law. Petition is allowed. Complaint stands restored on the file of learned Magistrate. Learned Magistrate after holding further fresh inquiry as he deems fit may pass appropriate order afresh. Petitioners need not remain present before the learned Magistrate at summoning stage. Complainant shall appear before the learned Magistrate on 31st August, 2013."

(2.) PERUSAL of the ordersheet of the Trial Court reveals that thereafter vide order dated 31.8.2013, learned Judicial Magistrate was pleased to issue notices to the complainant as well as the accused/petitioners, herein, asking them to remain present on 23.9.2013. Ordersheet further reveals that on 1.10.2014 accused (petitioners) were not present, therefore, non -bailable warrants were issued against the accused/petitioners, herein.

(3.) MR . Raman Kumar Sah, learned Deputy Advocate General, submitted that it seems that learned Magistrate wanted to hold inquiry before passing the summoning order afresh, as directed by this Court vide judgment dated 6.8.2013. He further contends that learned Magistrate is competent to call for the accused for the purpose of holding inquiry as required by Section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.