HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 8961 of 2025 Court No. - 16 HON'BLE BRIJ RAJ SINGH, J. 1. Heard Sri Manish Manish Sharma, learned counsel for the applicants as well as Sri Rajdeep Singh, learned AGA-1 for State-opposite party no.1 and Sri Lalit Narayan Mishra, learned counsel, who has filed power on behalf of opposite party no.2, which is taken on record. 2. The present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed seeking quashing of the order dated 24.092025 issuing non-bailable warrants against the applicants passed by the Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division), Room No.24, Pratapgarh in Compliant Case No.926 of 2024, Rama Kant Vs. Kuldeep Singh and others, under Sections 147, 149, 323, 504 and 506 IPC relating to Police Station Kotwali Nagar, District Pratapgarh. 3. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that on the complaint field by opposite party no.2, the trial court has issued summons vide order dated 20.01.2022 and the said summoning order was challenged by the applicants by way of filing Revision No.46 of 20205. The said revision was admitted and the revisional court has called for the trial court record vide order dated 20.08.2025. The order-sheet indicates the said file of the trial court was received in the office of the District Judge, Pratapgarh on 30.08.2025 and the revision is still pending. He further submits that instead of pendency of the aforesaid revision, the trial court has issued bailable warrants and thereafter non-bailable warrants on 24.09.2025 Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Manish Mani Sharma Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Kuldeep Singh And 8 Others .....Applicant(s) State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. U.P. Lko. And Another .....Opposite Party(s) against the applicants though the trial court record has already been summoned by the revisional court and the revision is yet to be decided. Counsel for the applicants further submits that proceedings cannot go on before the trial court for the reason that against the summoning order, the revision is already pending, which is admitted and the record of the trial court has already been summoned and the revisional court has not remitted back the trial court record. 4. On the other hand, counsel for opposite party no.2 has submitted that applicants are not pursuing the revision before the revisional court. He has further submitted that once the file is available with the trial court, it was incumbent upon the trial court to proceed in the matter and there is no illegality committed by it in issuing the non-bailable warrants against the applicants. 5. The fact is apparent on the face of record that the revision is pending before the revisional court against the summoning order issued by the trial court and the record was also summoned by the revisional court, therefore, issuing non-bailable warrants against the applicants is not justified. 6. Accordingly, the applicants are directed to move an application for recall of the order issuing non-bailable warrants against them within a period of two weeks from today and the same will be decided by the trial court within a further period of four weeks. 7. For a period of six weeks from today, execution of the impugned order dated 24.09.2025 shall remain stayed. 8. It is made clear that the applicants will cooperate in the proceedings before the revisional court and will not seek any unnecessary adjournment. 9. Subject to above observations/direction, the application stands disposed of. October 17, 2025 Rao/- A482 No. 8961 of 2025 2 (Brij Raj Singh,J.) Digitally signed by :- CHEBROLU SRINIVASA RAO High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench