P C SHARMA Vs. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Learned counsel for the applicants Mr. V.S.R. Krishna confined his argument on the point that Trial Court should not have issued Non Bailable Warrant at the first stage. If accused was not appearing despite service of the summon bailable warrant should have been issued. He further argued that no bail is required in the matter, hence, petitioners can move application before the Magistrate taking all the pleas including the plea of section 186 of Railways Act read with Section 197 of Cr.P.C. According to the learned counsel for the petitioners without prior approval from the competent authority petitioners cannot be prosecuted.

(2.) In view of above contention, learned counsel for the petitioners seeks permission to withdraw this petition with liberty to move application before the Magistrate. He also seeks direction from this court that in the event application is moved before Magistrate he be directed to decide the application before proceedings further.

(3.) In view of the statement made above, present application / petition is dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to the applicants to move appropriate application before the Magistrate concerned taking all the pleas including plea of maintainability of the complaint in view of section 186 of the Railways Act read with Section 197 of the Cr.P.C. I direct in the event such an application is moved before the Magistrate, he shall decide it in accordance with law before proceedings further.