Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:15686 Court No. - 14 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 1410 of 2025 Applicant :- Mamta Kiran Rao Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. / Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Of Home Con. Lko And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Sudhanshu S. Tripathi,Abhishek Chaubey,Mohammad Husain,Ritwika Tripathi,Wali Nawaz Khan Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Amarjeet Singh Rakhra Hon'ble Manish Kumar,J. 1. Short counter affidavit filed today on behalf of Investigating Officer, who is present today, is taken on record. 2. The present application under Section 528 of BNSS / earstwhile under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing of the order dated 22.01.2025 passed by the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Lucknow whereby an application for recall of non-bailable warrant issued against the Respondent No.2 has been allowed. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that an F.I.R. No.222/24, under Section 471, 468, 467, 409, 420 I.P.C. has been lodged by the applicant against Respondent No.1 i.e. State Government and Respondent No.2 who is a former Managing Director of Ansal Properties & Infrastructure Ltd. and responsible for approval, cancellation and allotment of properties being sold by the Ansal Properties. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that despite the notices issued by the Investigating Officer, the Respondent No.2 had not appeared before him and he was not cooperating in the investigation. 5. It is further submitted that when this fact was brought to the notice of the trial court by the Investigating Officer, the non- bailable warrant was issued on 19.12.2024 against the Respondent No.2. Only thereafter, the Respondent No.2 had move an application for recall of the order dated 19.12.2024, which was allowed by order dated 22.01.2025 and the order dated 19.12.2024 has been recalled, which is impugned in the present application / petition. 6. It is further submitted that the statements of Respondent No.2 were recorded by the Investigating Officer on telephone, which is not permissible under the law. 7. On the other hand learned A.G.A. and Sri Amarjeet Singh Rakhra, learned counsel for Respondent No.2 have submitted that the Investigating Officer had given a false picture before the trial court, due to which the non-bailable warrant was issued against Respondent No.2. The statements were recorded by the Investigating Officer on three occasions, twice on telephone and once the Respondent No.2 had appeared in person before the Investigating Officer and the reason best known to him that is why he had said before the trial court that the Respondent No.2 is not cooperating with the investigation. After order dated 22.01.2025, the Respondent No.2 had appeared thrice before the Investigating Officer and once after the order passed by this Court for recording of his statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C., which was recorded on 03.03.2025 and Respondent No.2 is fully cooperating in the proceedings. 8. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and going through the record of the case, the reasons for issuance of non- bailable warrant against the Respondent No.2 as it was alleged before the trial court is that the Respondent No.2 is not cooperating with the investigation without disclosing the fact that the Investigating Officer himself had twice contacted and conversed with Respondent No.2 in connection with the case on telephone and once the Respondent No.2 had appeared before him in person. In case, the Investigating Officer has not been recording the statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C., it is not the fault of the accused person. The very object of issuing the non- bailable warrant was to ensure the presence and cooperation of the accused person, which has been achieved as after the recall of the non-bailable warrant by order dated 22.01.2025, the Respondent No.2 had appeared thrice before the Investigating Officer and his statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. has also been recorded on 03.03.2025. The learned counsel for the Respondent No.2 has given an undertaking that Respondent No.2 shall always cooperate in the investigation and the proceedings pending before the trial court as per the law. 9. Learned A.G.A. on the basis of the instructions received from the Investigating Officer, who is present in the court, has submitted that the investigation is complete and the chargesheet will be filed expeditiously, say within a period of two weeks. 10. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case and the discussion made hereinabove, there is no illegality in the order dated 22.01.2025 passed by the trial court by recalling the non- bailable warrant issued against the Respondent No.2. 11. No interference is called for by this Court. The application under Section 528 BNSS/ 482 Cr.P.C. is dismissed accordingly. Order Date :- 17.3.2025 S. Kumar Digitally signed by :- SANTOSH KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench