MATIN AHMED S/O SHRI UMAR KHAN THEKEDAR v. SHRI MEHTAB SINGH S/O SHRI MADAN SINGH
CRLMP/5140/2025 · 2025-08-20
Sudesh Bansal
body2025
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 27786 (RAJ) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 27786 (RAJ) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
[2025:RJ-JP:32792] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 5140/2025 Matin Ahmed S/o Shri Umar Khan Thekedar, R/o Behind Sarkar Hotel, Rupangarh Road ,ward No. 4, Madanganj Kishangarh, District Ajmer ( Rajasthan). ----Petitioner Versus Shri Mehtab Singh S/o Shri Madan Singh, R/o Dadhich Colony, Ward No. 9, Madanganj -Kishangarh, District Ajmer, Rajasthan. ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Prakash Chand Yadav For Respondent(s) :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDESH BANSAL
Order 20/08/2025
1. Instant criminal misc. petition under Section 528 of BNSS, 2023 has been filed, challenging the order dated 29.11.2024 passed in Criminal Case No.1081/2024 for offence under Section 138 of NI Act, by the Court of Special Judicial Magistrate (NI Act Cases) Kishangarh, Ajmer, whereunder permanent arrest warrant against the petitioner has been issued, declaring him as absconder.
2. Counsel for petitioner states that the arrest warrant, allegedly issued by the trial Court in the present criminal case, was never served upon the petitioner and the trial Court has committed perversity and jurisdictional error in issuing permanent arrest warrant, hence, the impugned order dated 29.11.2024 is called for interference by this Court, in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction under Section 528 of BNSS.
[2025:RJ-JP:32792] (2 of 2) [CRLMP-5140/2025] However, during course of arguments and in view of the facts that respondent No.2 filed a criminal complaint under Section 138 NI Act for dishonour of a cheque of Rs.3 lacs, allegedly issued by the petitioner, wherein cognizance has been taken and such offence is bailable in nature, counsel for petitioner states that petitioner is agreeable to surrender before the trial Court on or before 10.09.2025 and to file a regular bail application.
3. In view of statements of counsel for petitioner that accused petitioner is agreeable to surrender, this Court does not deem it necessary to enter into merits/ demerits of the impugned order dated 29.11.2024, since the purpose of issuing arrest warrant against petitioner, is to ensure the presence of petitioner in the present criminal proceedings, in order to proceed with the criminal trial.
4. In such view of the matter, instant criminal misc. petition is
disposed of with liberty to petitioner to surrender before the concerned Judicial Magistrate on or before 10th September 2025 and to file a regular bail application.
5. Further, it is hereby observed that till 10th September 2025, permanent arrest warrant issued against the petitioner, vide order dated 29.11.2024, shall not be executed.
6. Stay application and pending application(s), if any, stand
disposed of.
(SUDESH BANSAL),J Sachin/55