HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 21362 of 2025 Court No. - 92 HON'BLE RAM MANOHAR NARAYAN MISHRA, J. 1. By means of present application u/s 528 BNSS, the applicant has prayed for quashing the order dated 30.9.2024 and entire proceedings of Case No. 23 of 2004 arising out of Case Crime no. 274 of 2003, under section 379 IPC, P.S. Konch, District Jalaun, pending in the court of Civil Judge (J.D.)/ Judicial Magistrate, Konch, Jalaun. 2. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned AGA for the State. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the respondent no. 2 lodged FIR under section 379 IPC on 26.4.2003 against unknown persons with allegation that some unknown persons stolen electricity wire and same was found in the truck in huge bundle; during course of investigation, name of applicant surfaced and he was chargesheeted on 21.12.2003; the court took cognizance and summoned him to face trial for charge under section 379 IPC by order dated 27.1.2004; non bailable warrant has been issued during course of time on 30.9.2024 which is still existing; he is not named in the FIR; he is not aware about issuance of process; on the date of incident, driver took the vehicle in question without disclosing him this fact that same may be used to carry stolen property and thereafter vehicle was seized by the police; the applicant could not get back his truck at yet. 4. Per contra, learned AGA opposed the prayer on the ground that the truck of the applicant was used in carrying huge quantity of electricity Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Surendra Nath Dubey, Upendra Kumar Dubey Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Anwar .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. and Another .....Opposite Party(s) wire; he charged for the offence under section 379 IPC; he deliberately avoided his appearance before the court; he has filed present petition only after issuance of NBW by the trial court against him. At this stage, it cannot be said that said stolen property was carried out by his truck without his knowledge; the FIR was lodged against unknown persons and during investigation, name of the applicant surfaced. 5. Considering the rival submissions of learned counsel for the parties and fact that huge quantity of stolen property was recovered from the vehicle owned by the applicant, it cannot be said that no cognizable offence is made out against him; the facts of the present case are not of such nature for which inherent power of the Court may be exercised in his favour to quash the criminal proceedings initiated against the applicant. 6. However, keeping in view the nature of offence it is directed that in case the applicant appears before the court below within one month and moves bail application, the same shall be decided strictly in view of law laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court in Satender Kumar Antil vs. CBI and another, (2022) 10 SCC 51. For a period of one month, no coercive process shall be issued against the applicant. 7. The application is disposed of with above observations. September 9, 2025 Dhirendra/ NA528 No. 21362 of 2025 2 (Ram Manohar Narayan Mishra,J.) Digitally signed by :- DHIRENDRA KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad