ANITA GOYAL WIFE YESHWANT GOYAL v. DHARMCHAND CHATAR, SON OF SURAJMAL CHATAR
CRLMP/812/2025 · 2025-12-03
Anoop Kumar Dhand
body2025
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 44353 (RAJ) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 44353 (RAJ) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
[2025:RJ-JP:49086] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 812/2025 Anita Goyal Wife Yeshwant Goyal, Aged About 39 Years, Resident Of In Front Of Hero Honda Agency, Bypass Road, Aklera, Police Station Aklera, District Jhalawar ( Rajasthan). ----Petitioner Versus Dharmchand Chatar, Son Of Surajmal Chatar, Aged About 54 Years, Resident Of 11, Shubham Homes Jhalawar, Police Station Kotwali Jhalawar District Jhalawar ( Rajasthan). ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr.Mayank Kumar Choudhary For Respondent(s) : Mr.Amit Punia, PP Mr.Tapesh Agarwal, PP JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND
Order 03/12/2025
1. By way of filing the instant criminal misc. petition, a challenge has been led to the impugned order dated 05.11.2024 passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate No.1, Jhalawar in Criminal Case No.355/2010 (revised No.442/2016 & 640/2016).
2.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was facing trial for the offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act before the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jhalawar since April, 2010 and he was continuously appearing before the Court below. Counsel submits that in the meantime, as per the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Dashrath Rupsingh Rathod Vs. State of Maharashtra & Anr. reported in (2014) 9 SCC 129, the cases
[2025:RJ-JP:49086] (2 of 3) [CRLMP-812/2025] were transferred to he jurisdictional Court, but later on, the position of law was further clarified and Government of India issued a notification in the year 2010 to that effect and therefore, the Section 142-A was added in the Negotiable Instruments Act. Hence, the case was again revived before the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jhalawar, but this time, the petitioner was not aware about the factual aspect of the matter. Hence, he could not appear before the Court below, and under these circumstances, without serving a fresh notice and summons upon him, arrest warrant has been issued and the petitioner has been declared as absconder. Counsel submits that the absence of the petitioner was not intentional, but it was bona fide on account of transfer of the complaint from the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Jhalawar to the jurisdictional Court in terms of the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Dashrath Rupsingh Rathod (supra). Counsel submits that petitioner is ready and willing to face the trial, therefore, the arrest warrant issued against the petitioner may be converted into bailable warrant. 3. Heard and considered the submissions made at the Bar and perused the material available on record. 4. Considering the arguments put forward by learned counsel for the petitioner and looking to the fact that on account of directions issued by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Dashrath Rupsingh Rathod (supra), the case was transferred to the jurisdictional Court and thereafter, it was re-transferred to the regional Court in terms of the notification issued by the Central
[2025:RJ-JP:49086] (3 of 3) [CRLMP-812/2025] Government and that was the precise reason of absence of petitioner before the trial Court. 5. Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case as narrated above, this Court deems it just and proper to dispose of the instant criminal misc.
petition by issuing direction to the trial Court to recall the arrest warrant issued against the petitioner and summon the petitioner through bailable warrant. 8. Accordingly, the criminal misc. petition stands allowed. The application seeking prayer for conversion of arrest warrant into bailable warrant stands allowed. The trial Court is directed to recall the arrest warrants issued against the petitioners and in case, the petitioner appears before the trial Court on or before 19.12.2025, the trial Court shall release the petitioner on bail, after taking personal surety bonds subject to the satisfaction of the trial Court. 9. Stay application and all pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of. (ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J Aayush Sharma /7