SMT. RUBY AND ANOTHER v. STATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER
NA528/7134/2025 · 2025-03-04
Vinod Diwakar
body2025
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 25021 (ALL) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 25021 (ALL) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:31086 Court No. - 76 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 7134 of 2025 Applicant :- Smt. Ruby And Another Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Mohammed Shadan,Mohd. Aslam Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Vinod Diwakar,J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the applicants and learned A.G.A. for the State.
2. The present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C., has been filed for quashing the Non Bailable Warrant dated 14.02.2024, passed by the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Court No.3, Ghaziabad in Case No.251 of 2017, arising out of Case Crime No. 1602 of 2017, under Sections 363, 366, 354, 120B IPC and Section 16/17 POCSO Act, P.S. Vijay Nagar, District Ghaziabad, pending in the Court of Special Judge POCSO Act, Court No.3, Ghaziabad.
3. Learned counsel for applicants submits that impugned order is against the facts and law. The applicant no.1 is lady and she is suffering from tumor in uterus and the applicant no.2 lives in Punjab to earn his livelihood and they had no knowledge about the proceedings initiated against them due to which they could not appear on the date fixed by the trial Court, hence, non-bailable warrant was issued against the applicants.
4. Per contra, learned A.G.A opposed the prayer.
5. Considering the facts and circumstances of the matter, subject to deposit of Rs.2,000/- by the applicants in favour of District Legal
Services Authority Ghaziabad, it is directed that in case the applicants appear and move appropriate application before the trial Court for recalling the impugned order, the same shall be decided expeditiously in accordance with law. For a period of 3 weeks or till the applicants move an application before the trial Court, whichever is earlier, no coercive action shall be taken against the applicants. Further, the Court shall not entertain the fictitious and repetitive personal exemption application, and if filed, the same shall be dismissed with reasonable costs.
6. With the aforesaid observation, the application is disposed of. Order Date :- 5.3.2025 A. Tripathi Justice Vinod Diwakar Digitally signed by :- AKHILESH TRIPATHI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad