# S. Krishna v. State of U.P

- **Citation:** (2024) 3 ILRA 946
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2024-03-12
- **Case number:** Application U/S 482. No. 2294 of 2024
- **Bench:** Rajesh Singh Chauhan
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/s-krishna-v-state-of-u-p-51718
- **Pages:** 4

## Headnote

Law
-
Code
of
Criminal
Procedure, 1973 - Sections 205 & 317 -
Rules for Video Conferencing for Courts in
the St. of Uttar Pradesh, 2020 - Rule 11 -
Against issuance of non-bailable warrant -
Petitioner, aged about 85 years and
suffering from age-related ailments, was
unable to appear personally before Court
at
stage
of
framing
of
charges
-
Nevertheless, despite being apprised of
his age and medical condition, Court
proceeded to issue non-bailable warrant
against him - Held, issuance of nonbailable warrant by trial court is wholly
unacceptable and contrary to settled law
laid down in Inder Mohan Goswami
(infra), as every accused is entitled to
protection of Article 21 of Constitution -
Trial courts have been cautioned in earlier
orders to ensure, before issuing nonbailable
warrants,
whether
accused
deliberately evaded proceedings despite
service of summons and bailable warrants
- In instant case, petitioner had been
appearing, but owing to old age and age
related ailments, could not appear on
relevant date, hence, court concerned
should not straightaway issued nonbailable warrant - Under Section 11 of
Rules, proceedings may, in exceptional
circumstances, be conducted virtually, in
consonance with Sections 205 and 317
Cr.P.C - Impugned order, set aside -
Directions accordingly. (Para 3, 8, 9)

Application allowed. (E-13)

List of Cases cited:

## Text

946 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Complaint
Case
no.
1217/2021
(Mohammad Ahmad vs. Dost Mohammad
and others) are hereby quashed and set
aside with the expectation that while
proceeding further pursuant to the order
dated 11.11.2021, which has been revived
by this order, the learned magistrate shall
carefully follow the mandatory compliance
of section 202(1) Cr.P.C. and shall follow
the settled proposition of law on the subject
which shall be placed by the respective
counsel and the observations of this order
may not
influence
and
the
learned
magistrate shall pass appropriate order
strictly in accordance with law. Further, the
magistrate shall take independent decision
on the basis of provision of law and the
settled position on the subject.

10. It is made clear that the quashing
of the impugned revisional order and
consequential order of the magistrate may
not be treated as if the learned court of
magistrate should only treat the application
filed by the opposite party no. 2 only as a
complaint but the magistrate court shall
ensure that the appropriate justice is done
with the parties strictly in accordance with
law.

11. In view of the above, instant
petition is allowed.
----------
(2024) 3 ILRA 946
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 12.03.2024

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE RAJESH SINGH CHAUHAN, J.

Application U/S 482. No. 2294 of 2024

S. Krishna ...Applicant
Versus
State of U.P. ...Respondent

Counsel for the Applicant:
Pranav Agarwal, Anumita Chandra
Counsel for the Respondent:
G.A.

Criminal
Law
-
Code
of
Criminal
Procedure, 1973 - Sections 205 & 317 -
Rules for Video Conferencing for Courts in
the St. of Uttar Pradesh, 2020 - Rule 11 -
Against issuance of non-bailable warrant -
Petitioner, aged about 85 years and
suffering from age-related ailments, was
unable to appear personally before Court
at
stage
of
framing
of
charges
-
Nevertheless, despite being apprised of
his age and medical condition, Court
proceeded to issue non-bailable warrant
against him - Held, issuance of nonbailable warrant by trial court is wholly
unacceptable and contrary to settled law
laid down in Inder Mohan Goswami
(infra), as every accused is entitled to
protection of Article 21 of Constitution -
Trial courts have been cautioned in earlier
orders to ensure, before issuing nonbailable
warrants,
whether
accused
deliberately evaded proceedings despite
service of summons and bailable warrants
- In instant case, petitioner had been
appearing, but owing to old age and age
related ailments, could not appear on
relevant date, hence, court concerned
should not straightaway issued nonbailable warrant - Under Section 11 of
Rules, proceedings may, in exceptional
circumstances, be conducted virtually, in
consonance with Sections 205 and 317
Cr.P.C - Impugned order, set aside -
Directions accordingly. (Para 3, 8, 9)

Application allowed. (E-13)

List of Cases cited:

1. Inder Mohan Goswami & anr. Vs St. of
Uttaranchal & ors.., (2007) 12 SCC 1

(Delivered by Hon'ble Rajesh Singh
Chauhan, J.)

1. Heard Sri Nadeem Murtaza,
learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri
3 All. S. Krishna Vs. State of U.P.
947
Aniruddh Kumar Singh, learned AGA-I for
the State.

2. By means of this petition filed
under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the petitioner
has prayed the following reliefs:-

"A. Quash the impugned order
dated
16.02.2024
and
order
dated
28.02.2024
passed
by
the
ACJM-V,
Lucknow in Case No. 9782/2013 vide
which Non-Bailable Warrant has been
issued against the Applicant. As Annexure
no.3.

B. Permit the Applicant to appear
through Counsel and participate in the
proceedings before the Trial Court in
accordance with Section 205 and 317
CrPC.

C. Any other and further relief
which this Hon'ble Court deems fit and
proper in the facts and circumstances of the
present case may also be kindly granted in
favour of the Applicant."

3. Sri Murtaza has stated that the
petitioner is an old aged person of 85 years
suffering various ailments, which are age
related, therefore, he could not appear
personally before the Court concerned at
the time of framing charges, resultant
thereof the court concerned has straight
away issued non-bailable warrant against
him, though the information regarding age
and ailment was apprised to the court
concerned.

4. Sri Murtaza has further submitted
that in such a critical and ailing condition,
the petitioner is willing to participate in the
proceedings but has requested that he may
be permitted to appear through counsel in
terms of Sections 205 & 317 Cr.P.C.
Attention has been drawn towards Rule 11
of the Rules for Video Conferencing for
Courts in the State of Uttar Pradesh, 2020
(hereinafter referred to as "the Rules"),
framed under Article 225 and 227 of the
Constitution of India, whereunder Rule 11
reads as under:

"11. Judicial remand, framing
of charge, examination of accused and
proceedings under Section 164 of the
Cr.P.C.

11.1 The Court may, at its
discretion, authorize detention of an
accused, frame charges in a criminal trial
under the Code of Criminal Procedure,
1973
through
video
conferencing.
However, ordinary judicial remand in the
first instance or police remand shall not be
granted through Video conferencing save
and except in exceptional circumstances for
reasons to be recorded in writing.

11.2
The
Court
may,
in
exceptional circumstances, for reasons to
be recorded in writing, examine a witness
or an accused under Section 164 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 or
record the statement of the accused under
Section 313 Code of Criminal Procedure,
1973 through video conferencing, while
observing all due precautions to ensure
that the witness or the accused as the case
may be, is free of any form of coercion,
threat or undue influence. The Court shall
ensure compliance with Section 26 of the
Evidence Act."

5. The aforesaid Rules also defines
the exceptional circumstances under Rule 2
(viii) as under:

"2. Definitions.-

(viii)
"Exceptional
circumstances" include illustratively a
pandemic,
natural
calamities,
circumstances implicating law and order
948 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
and matters relating to the safety of the
accused and witnesses."

6. Learned AGA has fairly assisted
the Court and has submitted that nonbailable warrant should not have been
issued straight away against any person
unless the summon is issued and after
verifying the fact that despite the service of
summons, the accused person avoided the
proceedings without having any cogent
reasons, then bailable warrant may be
issued and if, after service of bailable
warrant, the accused person deliberately
avoids the proceedings, in such exceptional
circumstances, the non-bailable warrant can
be issued as this law has been settled by the
Apex Court in re; Inder Mohan Goswami
and Another v. State of Uttaranchal and
Others, (2007) 12 SCC 1. Therefore,
learned AGA did not defend the impugned
orders whereby the non-bailable warrants
have been issued.

7. I appreciate the fair assistance of
the learned AGA.

8. Having heard learned counsel for
the parties and having perused the material
available on record, at the very outset, I am
constrained to observe that the manner in
which the non-bailable warrant has been
issued by the learned trial court is
absolutely unacceptable and in derogation
of the settled law of the Apex Court in re;
Inder Mohan Goswami (supra) inasmuch
as every citizen of the country including the
accused person is having fundamental right
under Article 21 of the Constitution of
India. I have already cautioned the learned
trial courts in my earlier orders in certain
other cases to ensure before issuing nonbailable warrants as to whether after
service of summons and bailable warrants,
the accused person has deliberately avoided
the proceedings. Besides, in the present
case, the petitioner was appearing before
the court concerned but on account of his
old age and age related ailments, he could
not appear, therefore, the court concerned
should
not
have
issued
non-bailable
warrant straight away.

9. In terms of Section 11 of the Rules,
the proceedings of the case in exceptional
circumstances may be undertaken virtually
and also in accordance with Sections 205 &
317 Cr.P.C.

10.

Therefore,
considering
the
aforesaid submissions of the learned
counsel for the parties and having regard
the dictum of the Apex Court in re; Inder
Mohan Goswami (supra), I hereby set
aside/ quash the impugned orders dated
16.02.2024 and 28.02.2024 (supra), which
have been enclosed as Annexure No.3 to
this petition, at the admission stage.

11. I further direct the learned trial
court to permit the petitioner/ applicant to
appear virtually through counsel and
participate in the proceedings strictly in
accordance with Sections 205 & 317
Cr.P.C., for that, appropriate orders be
passed and appropriate arrangements be
done strictly in accordance with law.

12. It is made clear that the case of the
present petitioner squarely covers with the
definition
"exceptional
circumstances"
(supra) inasmuch as he is an old aged ailing
person, therefore, this order would confine
to the present petitioner only as the benefit
of this order may not be taken by other coaccused, if any.

13. Accordingly, the instant petition is
allowed.
3 All. Akshay Pratap Singh @ Gopalji & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
949
----------
(2024) 3 ILRA 949
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 01.03.2024

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SUBHASH VIDYARTHI, J.

Application U/S 482. No. 2718 of 2023
&
Other Connected Cases

Akshay Pratap Singh @ Gopalji & Ors.
 ...Applicants
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Applicants:
Meenakshi Singh Parihar, Abhiuday Pratap
Singh

Counsel for the Opposite Parties:
G.A.

Criminal Law - Indian Penal Code, 1860 -
Sections 395/ 397/ 307/ 364/ 323/ 325/
504/ 506/ 427/ 34 - Criminal Law
Amendment Act, 1932 - Section 7 - Code
of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 321
-
Application
for
withdrawal
of
prosecution against applicants rejected -
Validity of - Informant, BSP candidate,
lodged FIR against 13 named persons
alleging that while dining with some other
political leaders and party workers at
Dhaba, accused persons, including dozen
other persons in two SUVs, intercepted,
abused, and opened fire with intent to kill
-
Assailants pursued up to Kotwali,
continued firing, damaged vehicles and
assaulted companions, causing fractures
to two persons - Further alleged that
some
companions
were
abducted,
weapons and belongings snatched away -
Despite indiscriminate firing by several
persons from over dozen vehicles, no
gunshot injury sustained by anyone - First
charge sheet filed on 03.01.2011 against
11 persons, followed by supplementary
charge sheet on 15.03.2011 against 15
persons, though FIR named only 13
accused
-
In withdrawal application,
Public
Prosecutor,
opined
that
Government's decision was lawful as
evidence
was
weak
and
prosecution
doubtful - Trial court rejected application
solely on ground that alleged offences
were grave and non-compoundable - Trial
court noted recovery of missing weapons
from co-accused persons, but ignored that
prosecution against them was not sought
to
be
withdrawn
-
Informant
filed
application
and
counter
affidavit
supporting withdrawal of prosecution,
stating FIR lodged under political pressure
-Thus, impugned order, quashed. (Para
31, 33 to 37)

Application allowed. (E-13)

List of Cases cited:

1. Daxa Ben Vs St. of Gujarat, 2022 SCC OnLine
SC 936

2. Ashwani Kumar Upadhyay Vs U.O.I. reported
in (2021) 20 SCC 599, decided on 10.08.2021

3. Sheonandan Paswan Vs St. of Bihar, (1987) 1
SCC 288, (Paras 30, 37, 73, 78, 87, 90)

4. Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay Vs U.O.I., (2021)
20 SCC 599

5. Rajender Kumar Jain Vs St. (1980) 3 SCC
435, (Paras 14, 15)

6. St. of Kerala Vs K. Ajith, (2021) 17 SCC 318,
(Para 25)

(Delivered by Hon'ble Subhash Vidyarthi,
J.)

1. Heard the submissions of Sri H.G.S
Parihar, Senior Advocate assisted by Smt.
Meenakshi Singh Parihar and Abhiuday
Pratap Singh Advocates, the learned
counsel for the applicants in Application
under Section 482 Nos. 2718 of 2023, Sri.
P. K. Singh Bisen Advocate, the learned