# Ramvir Singh v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2023) 9 ILRA 1026
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2023-08-21
- **Case number:** Writ-C No. 22242 of 2023
- **Bench:** Chandra Kumar Rai
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/ramvir-singh-v-state-of-u-p-ors-50717
- **Pages:** 7

## Headnote

Civil Law - U.P. Zamindari Abolition and
Land Reforms Act, 1950 - Sections 229B,
331(3) & 333 - Code of Civil Procedure,
1908 - Order 9 Rule 13 - Constitution of
India, 1950 - Article 226 - Ex-Parte
Judgment
and
Procedural
Compliance
-
Petitioner
challenged
the
order
dated
18.01.2013, allowing the St.'s application under
Order 9 Rule 13 CPC to set aside an ex-parte
judgment dated 07.01.2013 decreeing his suit
under Section 229B for bhumidhari rights over
four plots, and the order dated 29.04.2023
dismissing his revision. Petitioner argued that
the St. should have filed an appeal under
Section 331(3) instead of an application under
Order 9 Rule 13, and that the orders were
arbitrary. Respondents contended that the exparte judgment was cryptic, lacking proper
adjudication of evidence or issues, as required
under Kallu Khan and Smt. Kaniz Fatima. Court
held that the trial court's ex-parte decree failed
to comply with CPC requirements for proper
adjudication, rendering it illegal. Quashing the
impugned orders would restore an illegal
judgment, which is impermissible under Paras
Nath Singh. The orders setting aside the exparte decree and dismissing the revision were
upheld, as they ensured a fresh decision on
merits. Writ petition dismissed. (Paras 8-12, 14)

Writ petition dismissed.

List of Cases cited:

## Text

1026 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

13. Since we find that the petitioners
had not replied to the notices, we remand
the
matter
back
to
the
District
Magistrate/Collector, Mathura, for a fresh
adjudication after hearing the petitioners.
So far as the filing of a Revision is
concerned, we do not consider it to be an
appropriate
remedy
since
there
was
definitely a violation of the principles of
natural justice and also we find that the
impugned order did not take into account
the procedure as ought to have been
followed.

14. For all the reasons stated above,
the writ petition is partly allowed.
----------
(2023) 9 ILRA 1026
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 21.08.2023

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE CHANDRA KUMAR RAI, J.

Writ-C No. 22242 of 2023

Ramvir Singh ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Dwijendra Prasad

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.

Civil Law - U.P. Zamindari Abolition and
Land Reforms Act, 1950 - Sections 229B,
331(3) & 333 - Code of Civil Procedure,
1908 - Order 9 Rule 13 - Constitution of
India, 1950 - Article 226 - Ex-Parte
Judgment
and
Procedural
Compliance
-
Petitioner
challenged
the
order
dated
18.01.2013, allowing the St.'s application under
Order 9 Rule 13 CPC to set aside an ex-parte
judgment dated 07.01.2013 decreeing his suit
under Section 229B for bhumidhari rights over
four plots, and the order dated 29.04.2023
dismissing his revision. Petitioner argued that
the St. should have filed an appeal under
Section 331(3) instead of an application under
Order 9 Rule 13, and that the orders were
arbitrary. Respondents contended that the exparte judgment was cryptic, lacking proper
adjudication of evidence or issues, as required
under Kallu Khan and Smt. Kaniz Fatima. Court
held that the trial court's ex-parte decree failed
to comply with CPC requirements for proper
adjudication, rendering it illegal. Quashing the
impugned orders would restore an illegal
judgment, which is impermissible under Paras
Nath Singh. The orders setting aside the exparte decree and dismissing the revision were
upheld, as they ensured a fresh decision on
merits. Writ petition dismissed. (Paras 8-12, 14)

Writ petition dismissed.

List of Cases cited:

1. Sunil Poddar & ors.Vs Union Bank of India,
2008 AIR (SC) 1006

2. Kallu Khan & ors. Vs Commissioner Chitrakoot
Dham Division Banda & ors., (2016) 133 RD 375

3. Paras Nath Singh Vs The Deputy Director of
Consolidation & ors., 1985 RD 71

4. Smt. Kaniz Fatima & anr. Vs Shah Naim
Ashraf, AIR 1983 Allahabad 450

(Delivered by Hon'ble Chandra Kumar
Rai, J.)

1. Heard Mr. Dwijendra Prasad,
learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.
Abhishek Shukla, learned Additional Chief
Standing Counsel for the State-respondents.

2. The instant petition has been filed
for the following reliefs:

"i. issue a writ, order or direction in
the nature of certiorari quashing the
impugned order dated 29.4.2023 passed by
Additional Commissioner, Agra Division,
9 All. Ramvir Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1027
Agra in Revision No.81 of 2012-13
(Computerized
Case
No.C2013100000274), under Section 333
of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act and order dated
18.01.2013 passed by Assistant Collector
First Class/ Revenue Officer Mainpuri in
Case No.95 of 2009-10 under Section 229B
of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act (Ramvir Singh vs.
Vinod and Others).

ii. issue a writ, order or direction in
the nature of mandamus commanding the
respondents not to disturb the right, title
and possession of the petitioner over the
land in dispute well described in the writ
petition, except following the dues required
procedure in accordance with law.

iii. issue a writ, order or direction in
the nature of mandamus to the respondent
authorities commanding them to keep intact
the entries in the relevant statutory records
as it is today up to the time until and unless
the same are ordered to be modified, varied
or expunged by any competent judicial
forum.

iv. issue a writ, order or mandamus in
the nature of mandamus commanding the
Executive authorities not to dispossess the
petitioner by any administrative fiat except
otherwise than in accordance with law.

v. Pass such other and further order
which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and
proper under the facts and circumstances
of the case.

vi. Award the cost of the petition in
favour of the petitioner."

3. Brief facts of the case are that
petitioner filed a suit under Section 229B of
U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act for declaration that the
petitioner
be
declared
bhumidhar
with
transferable right in respect to plot no.638,
736, 762, 774, total four plots area 1.234
Hectare. On the basis of possession, State has
filed written statement in the aforementioned
suit. Trial Court vide ex-parte judgment and
decree dated 7.1.2013 decreed the plaintiff's
suit. On 18.1.2013, State filed an application
under Order 9 Rule 13 of Code of Civil
Procedure for setting aside the ex-parte
judgment and decree dated 7.1.2013. Trial
Court vide order dated 18.1.2013 allowed the
application dated 18.1.2013 filed by State
setting aside the ex-parte judgment dated
7.1.2013 and restored the suit for fresh
decision on merit. Petitioner challenged the
order dated 18.1.2023 through revision before
Commissioner which has been dismissed vide
order dated 29.4.2023, hence this writ petition
on behalf of petitioner challenging the orders
dated 29.4.2023 and 18.1.2023.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner
submitted that the suit under Section 229B of
U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act filed by the petitioner has
been decreed after filing of written statement
by the State. He further submitted that in place
of filing appeal under Section 331 (3) of
U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act, an application under
Order 9 Rule 13 of Code of Civil Procedure
was filed by the State after three days from
deciding the suit under Section 229B of
U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act. He further submitted
that the trial Court has allowed the application
filed under Order 9 Rule 13 of C.P.C. in
arbitrary manner. He next submitted that the
petitioner filed a revision against the order
allowing the application filed by the State
which has been also dismissed in arbitrary
manner. He also submitted that once the
procedure prescribed has not been followed,
the order impugned cannot be sustained. He
further placed reliance upon the judgment of
Apex Court reported in 2008 AIR (SC) 1006
(Sunil Poddar & Others vs. Union Bank of
India) in order to demonstrate that the
procedure prescribed should be followed for
recalling the order passed in the proceeding.

5. On the other hand, Mr. Abhishek
Shukla, learned Additional Chief Standing
1028 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Counsel submitted that the trial Court has
decreed the plaintiff's suit by passing
cryptic order. He further submitted that
although issues have been framed but there
is no adjudication of the suit as required to
be decided in the proceeding under Section
229 B of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act. He also
submitted that after framing issues, the
issues are to be adjudicated in accordance
with law but the trial Court while decreeing
the plaintiff's suit has passed the cryptic
order that the plaintiff has proved the case
of adverse possession without discussing
any evidence relied upon by the plaintiff in
the suit. He further placed reliance upon the
judgment reported in (2016) 133 R.D. 375,
Kallu
Khan
and
6
Others
vs.
Commissioner Chitrakoot Dham Division
Banda and three Others, in order to
demonstrate
that
even
the
ex-parte
judgment are to be passed after considering
the evidence adduced by the plaintiff.

6. I have considered the argument
advanced by learned counsel for the parties
and perused the record.

7. There is no dispute about the fact
that the suit under Section 229B of
U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act filed by the plaintiffpetitioner was decreed by the trial Court
but the on the application under Order 9
Rule 13 of C.P.C. filed by the State after
three days from the passing of the judgment
was recalled and suit has been restored to
its original number for fresh decision in
accordance with law.

8. Since, the suit under Section 229 B of
U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act has been decreed by
passing cryptic order dated 7.1.2013, as
such, the perusal of the same will be
relevant, which is as follows:

"न्यायािय रािस्व अकधिारी/ म िपुरी।
न्यायािय सहायि ििक्टर प्रथम (माि)/ रािस्व अकधिारी म िपुरी।
वाद संख्या- 65/09-10 धारा- 229वी ि०कव० अकधकियम
मौिा- ईसईमधुपुरी तहसीि, िुराविी, तहसीि व कििा म िपुरी।
रामवीर कसंह बिाम कविोद आकद
किणगय

सूक्ष्म कववरण वाद इस प्रिार ह कि रामवीर कसंह िे ग्राम
ईसईमधुपुरी
िे
िम्बराि
638/0.081,
736/0.526,774/2/0.607 िुि चार किता 1.236 िर्ािी
22.00 प सा िो कि प्रकतवादी 01 िर्ायत 02 िे िाम ितौिी में
अंकित ह , से िाम प्रकतवादीर्ण 01 िर्ायत 02 िे कपता महावीर कसंह िे
समय से चिा आ रहा ह । इन्राि ितौिी प्रकतवादीर्ण 01 व 02
अव धाकिि ह । किसी भी प्रकतवादीर्ण िा िोई िब्िा िही ह ।

सम्मि प्रकतवादीर्ण िारी किये र्ये ह । कदिांि 15-10-97 िो
कविोद पप्पू िी ओर से आपकत्त दाकिि िी र्ई ह । कदिांि 23-11-96
िो स्टेट िे भी प्रकतवादी पत्र दाकिि किया ह । पक्षर्ण िी दिीिों िे
आधार पर किम्िकिकित वाद कबन्दु कदिांि 03-01-96 िो बिाये र्ये ह ।

1- आया कि वादी िब्िा र्ासवािा िे आधार पर आरािी िा
िाश्तिार भूकमधर ह ।

2- आया कि धारा 80 सी०पी०सी० एवं 106 पं० राि एक्ट िे
िोकटस कवकधवत वादी द्वारा कदये र्ये ह ।

3- आया कि आरािी सावगिकिि प्रयोर् िी भूकम ह ।

4- आया कि वाद अव ध हस्तान्तरण िा ह ।

दावा िरिे से पूवग कवकधवत िोकटस कदये र्ये ह । वादी द्वारा अपिे
िथि िी पुकष्ट िरते हुए दाकिि किया ह । इि तीिों ही र्वाहाि िे बयाि
संदेह से परे ह , किन्होंिे िब्िा र्ासवाि िो बिूबी साकबत किया ह । स्टेट
िी ओर से िोई साक्ष्य प्रस्तुत किया र्या ह । वाद कबन्दु बार वाद िा
किस्तारण किम्िवत किया िाता ह -

वाद कबन्दु संख्या-1 िब्िा र्ासवािा िो साकबत बिूबी साकबत
वादी स्वंय व उििे र्वाहाि िे किया ह प्रकतिण्िि में िोई भी साक्ष्य िहीं
आया ह । अतैः वाद कबन्दु सिारात्मि रुप से तय िी िाती ह । वाद कबन्दु
संख्या-2 धारा 80 सी०पी०सी० एवं 106 पं० राि एक्ट िे िोकटस िी
प्रकतयााँ मय रसीद रकिस्री िी प्रकतयां पत्राविी पर मौिूद ह , किन्हें साकबत
िराया र्या ह । अतैः उक्त वाद कबन्दु सिारात्मि रुप से तय िी िाती ह ।

वाद संख्या-3 क्योंकि पत्राविी स्टेट िी ओर से प सा िोई िवादी
एवं तहरीरी अकभिेिा दाकिि किया र्या ह किससे यह साकबत हो कि
भूकम कििाई सावगिकिि प्रयोिि िी भूकम ह । अतैः उक्त वाद कबन्दु
ििारात्मि रुप से किणीत िी िाती ह ।
9 All. Ramvir Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1029

वाद कबन्दु संख्या-4 उक्त वाद अव ध हस्तान्तरण िा िहीं ह ,
क्योंकि वादी द्वारा िब्िा साकबत िरिे िो अपिा साक्ष्य सन्तोषििि रुप से
कदया ह । अतैः उक्त वाद कबन्दु िािारत्मि से किणीत िी िाती ह ।

मैंिे पत्राविी पर उपिब्ध साक्ष्यों अविोिि किया। प्रकतवादीर्ण
द्वारा िोई बहस प्रस्तुत िहीं िी र्ई ि ही िोई साक्ष्य प्रस्तुत किया ह ।
प्रकतवादी िी अदम प रवी िे िारण प्रकतवादी िे आधार पर वादी अपिा
िथि साकबत िरिे में सफि रहा ह । अतैः वाद एि पक्षीय रुप से किक्री
होिे योग्य ह ।
आदेश

दावा वादी एि पक्षीय रुप से आज्ञाप् किया िाता ह तथा आरािी
िम्बर
िं
638/0.081,
736/0.020,
762/0.526,
774/0.607 िुि चार किता 1.234 िर्ािों 22-00 ग्राम
ईसईमधुपुरी पर िाव वादी बतौर संक्रमणीय भूकमधर दिग किया िावे।
तदिुसार आदेश पत्रि िारी हों। वादी आवश्यि िायगवाही दाकिि दफ्तर
हों।
ह० अप०
रािस्व ििक्टर प्रथम श्रेणी (माि)
म िपुरी।
आि यह आदेश मेरे द्वारा िुिे न्यायािय में हस्ताक्षररत एवं कदिांकित िर
किर्गत किया र्या।
कदिांि 07-01-13

 ह० अप०

रािस्व ििक्टर प्रथम श्रेणी (माि)

म िपुरी"

9. The judgment of trial Court as
quoted above reveals that there is no proper
adjudication of suit filed by the petitioner
under Section 229B of U.P.Z.A. & L.R.
Act. It is material that even in the ex-parte
judgment there should proper consideration
and analysis of the evidence of the plaintiff
and there should be proper adjudication of
the dispute as suit under Section 229B of
U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act now under Section
144 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 is of
special character, which can not be decided
by passing cryptic judgment.

10. The judgment cited by Mr.
Abhishek Shukla, learned Additional Chief
Standing Counsel for the State-respondents
in the case of Kallu Khan and Others
(supra) is also relevant for perusal.
Paragraph no.16 to 23 of the judgment
rendered in Kallu Khan and Others
(supra) are relevant, which are as under:

"16. It would be relevant to note that 6
issues have been framed consequent to the
written statement filed by the State of U.P.
Although, the Trial Court by its order dated
05.04.2010 decreed the suit, it did not refer
to any of the issues framed. This order does
not refer to any submissions made on
behalf of the State or the Gaon Sabha. It is
therefore clear that the order dated
05.04.2010 is clearly exparte against the
Gaon Sabha and the State of U.P.

17. Besides this order does not fulfill
the requirements of the judgment as
provided under the Civil Procedure Code.
The case being decided, was a regular title
suit under Section 229-B of the Act. The
judgment
therefore,
was
necessarily
required to comply with the provisions of
the Civil Procedure Code and a finding on
each
and
every
issues
framed
was
necessarily required to be recorded. No
such exercise has been done. The issues
framed have not yet been referred to in the
judgment of 05.04.2010. On the contrary in
the last line, the Trial Court observed that
it is a case of correction of papers.

18. In view of he above discussion and
since this Court is of the firm view that the
order dated 05.04.2010 was exparte, I do
not consider it a fit case for interference on
technicalities.

19. The contention of learned counsel
for the petitioner is that the State was
heard and that the statement of the Revenue
Records Keeper had been recorded at the
instance of the State is not borne out from
the record. As noticed above, the Revenue
Record Keeper was summoned on the
application filed by the plaintiff and when
he appeared with the record his statement
was recorded. It therefore cannot be said
that the Revenue Record Keeper was
1030 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
produced on behalf of the State or the
Gaon Sabha. He having been summoned on
the
application
of
the
plaintiff,
his
deposition would necessarily be termed as
as one on behalf of the plaintiff.

20.
The
above
noted
hearing
illegalities
and
irregularities
in
the
judgment dated 05.04.2010 is sought to be
blast over on the ground of technicalities
first that the judgment was recalled without
notice to the plaintiff or his heirs and that
the decree was not condoned and that the
order was against a dead person.

21. These grounds raised may have
merit, but this Court in exercise of equity
jurisdiction under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India does not propose to
interfere with the impugned orders on such
technicalities. These technicalities may
render the orders impugned, illegal yet this
Court refuses to set aside these so called
illegal orders because any interference
would amount to restoring an equally
illegal order passed by the Trial Court
which as already noticed herein in above
was clearly exparte against the State and
the Gaon Sabha it also failed to comply
with the provisions of the Civil Procedure
Code and therefore cannot be termed a
judgment in the eye of law.

22. Accordingly and for the reasons
given above, the writ petition merits no
interference. It is therefore dismissed.

23. The parties may appear before the
Trial Court and contest the matter on its
merits. The original records of Suit No. 9 of
2009-10 produced by learned Standing
Counsel be returned for its transmission to
the Trial Court."

11. This Court in the case reported in
1985 R.D. 71 Paras Nath singh Vs. The
Deputy Director of Consolidation and
others has held that if by setting aside the
impugned order another illegal order will
be restored then the Court under Article
226 of the Constitution of India should not
interfere with the impugned order although
the order impugned is illegal or irregular.
Paragraph No.21 of the judgment rendered
in Paras Nath (supra) is relevant which is
as follows:

"21. It is, no doubt, correct to say that
any order passed without jurisdiction is a
nullity and deserves to be quashed. But if
as a result of quashing that order another
wrong and illegal order would be restored,
this Court would refuse to interfere with the
impugned order which appears to be quite
proper equitable and just order. As
mentioned above, the power under Article
226 of the Constitution is devised to
advance justice and not to thwart it. To me
it appears to be well settled that an order
which is illegal cannot be quashed or set
aside in writ jurisdiction if quashing of it
results in bringing on record another
illegal order."

12. This Court in a case reported in
AIR 1983 Allahabad 450, Smt. Kaniz
Fatima and another vs. Shah Naim
Ashraf has held that if no issue has been
framed on a question which arise out of the
pleadings of the parties, the Court cannot
proceed to record a finding on that point.
Paragraph nos.19 and 20 of the judgment
are quoted hererunder:-

"19. There is no dispute with the
proposition of law laid down in the
aforesaid decision, but the true scope of the
said rule would be that where the parties
have led their entire evidence on all the
pleas raised by them, they cannot be
permitted to urge at the conclusion of the
proceedings or in appeal that they were
taken by surprise by non-framing of an
issue on that particular point on which they
9 All. Ramvir Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1031
have already exhausted their evidence. In
such a case it cannot be said that the
parties are prejudiced in any manner
whatsoever by non-framing of an issue. But
the said rule cannot be construed to cover
those cases as well where the evidence was
led on issues on which the parties actually
went to trial, because it is well settled that
the evidence adduced on any particular
issue by the parties cannot be made
foundation for decision of any other and
different plea on which no issue has been
framed, because in the absence of an issue
on the point they cannot be said to have an
opportunity of adducing evidence in
support of it or in rebuttal of it. It cannot be
assumed that the parties have exhaustively
led evidence on all the pleas raised in the
pleadings. A party is supposed to lead
evidence only on the issues framed in the
suit. The other party can object and the
court can always refuse to re cord evidence
which does not relate to the issues framed
in the suit. Even if evidence has been led
and brought on record, the court will not
be justified to look into that evidence for
deciding a point not covered by the issues.
Thus, it cannot be said that if the parties
had led evidence in the case it should be
construed to cover all the pleas raised in
the pleadings although no issue has been
framed on that point.

20. The object of framing the issue is
to direct the attention of the parties to lead
evidence on that specific issue framed and
if no evidence is led (one line obliterated
Ed.) drawn against the concerned party for
holding that it has no evidence to support
or to rebut the plea covered by the issue in
question. But in the absence of proper
issues covering all the pleas raised in
pleadings it cannot be said that the parties
have exhausted all their evidence or all the
pleas raised by them although the same are
not covered by the issues framed. In this
view of the matter, we find that in the
present case since proper issues have not
been framed, which arise out of the
pleadings of the parties as well as in the
statement of the case recorded under O. 10,
R. 2 of the Code, it cannot be said that the
defendants have led all their evidence
which they would have led in support of the
pleas which are not covered by the issues
framed in the suit. The decision, recorded
by the court below, therefore, cannot be
sustained on the said ground urged by the
learned counsel for the plaintiff. The case,
therefore, deserves to be remanded to the
trial court for decision afresh after framing
proper additional issues in the suit and
giving full opportunity to the parties to lead
their evidence which they may like to
produce in support of their case. Learned
court below will carefully
scrutinize
pleadings and frame necessary additional
issues."

13. The judgment cited by learned
counsel for the petitioner will not be
applicable in the facts and circumstances of
this case rather the judgment rendered in
Kallu Khan (supra), Paras Nath Singh
(supra) & Smt. Kaniz Fatima (supra) shall
be applicable in the instant matter.

14. Considering the entire facts and
circumstances, as well as ratio of law laid
down by this Court in Kallu Khan &
Others (supra), Paras Nath (supra),as well
as
Smt.
Kaniz
Fatima
(supra),
no
interference
is
required
against
the
impugned orders in exercise of jurisdiction
under Article 226 of Constitution of India
as the result of quashing of impugned
orders will result into restoring the illegal
order of trial dated 7.1.2013 by which suit
under section 229B of U.P.Z.A. and L.R.
Act has been decreed in violation of the
ratio of law laid down by this court in
1032 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Kallu Khan and others (supra) as well as
Smt. Kaniz Fatima (supra).

15. The writ petition is dismissed,
accordingly.
----------
(2023) 9 ILRA 1032
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED:LUCKNOW 03.08.2023

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SHREE PRAKASH SINGH, J.

Application U/S 482. No. 7434 of 2023

Maqbool Hasan ...Applicant
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Applicant:
Ashok Kumar Mishra

Counsel for the Opposite Parties:
G.A.

Civil Law - Negotiable Instruments Act,
1881 - Section 138 - Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 - Sections 82 & 482 -
Issuance
of
Non-Bailable
Warrant
and
Proclamation - Validity - Applicant challenged
non-bailable
warrant
(NBW)
orders
dated
31.01.2023,
20.02.2023,
28.03.2023,
28.04.2023, and joint NBW/Section 82 Cr.P.C.
order dated 04.07.2023, issued due to nonappearance in a complaint case for cheque
bounce
of
Rs.5,00,000/-.
Applicant
had
appeared regularly before 31.01.2023 but failed
to appear on that date due to unavoidable
circumstances. Trial court issued NBW and
proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. without
recording
reasons
or
following
prescribed
procedures.
Applicant
argued
that
NBW
issuance was mechanical, violating Raghuvansh
Dewanchand Bhasin guidelines, and Section 82
proclamation lacked reasons, publication, and
mandatory 30-day notice period. Court held that
NBW issuance requires recorded satisfaction to
avoid arbitrary curtailment of liberty under
Article 21. Section 82 mandates reasons to
believe the accused is absconding, with proper
publication of proclamation, which was not
followed.
Orders
dated
31.01.2023
and
subsequent orders, including proclamation, were
set aside as unlawful. Matter remitted to trial
court with directions for applicant to cooperate
and appear regularly. (Paras 6, 8-9, 19-25)

Application allowed.

List of Cases Cited:

1. Raghuvansh Dewanchand Bhasin Vs St.of
Mah., Criminal Appeal No. 1758 of 2011

2. Sunil Tyagi Vs Govt of NCT of Delhi & anr.,
2021 CriLJ 3461

3. Devendra Singh Negi Vs St. of U.P., Citation
Not Provided

(Delivered by Hon'ble Shree Prakash
Singh, J.)

1. Heard Sri Ashok Kumar Mishra,
learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Atrey
Tripathi, learned A.G.A. for the State.

2. By means of the present
application, prayer has been made for
setting aside the orders of Non-Bailable
Warrant dated 31-1-2023, 20-2-2023, 28-32023, 28-4-2023 and the joint order of
NBW/82 Cr.P.C., dated 4-7-2023 passed by
Presiding Officer, Additional court room
no. 5, Lucknow against the petitioner, in
complaint case no. 2479 of 2019 (Mohd.
Nasir Vs Moqbool Hasan), U/S 138 N.I.
Act, P.S. Aliganj District- Lucknow.

3. Notice to opposite party no. 2 is
hereby dispensed with, as the matter being
decided, at the admission stage.

4. Learned counsel appearing for the
applicant submits that on 15.10.2018, a
cheque is said to be issued by the present