HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 29954 of 2025 Court No. - 71 HON'BLE RAJ BEER SINGH, J. 1. Supplementary affidavit filed by learned counsel for the applicant is taken on record. 2. Heard Sri Vinay Saran, learned Senior Advocate, assisted by Sri Anshul Kumar Singhal, learned counsel for the applicants and learned AGA for the State. 3. This application under Section 528 Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita ( hereinafter referred to as 'BNSS') has been preferred against orders dated 12.11.2024, 21.11.2024 & 17.01.2025, passed by Additional Civil Judge (J.D.) / Judicial Magistrate, Court No.3, Ghaziabad in Case Crime No.454 of 2023, under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 120B IPC, P.S.- Nandgram, Commissionerate, District- Ghaziabad, whereby non-bailable warrants and process under Sections 82 & 83 Cr.P.C. have been issued. 3. It has been submitted by learned Senior Advocate that no summon or bailable warrants were served upon applicant and thus issuance of non- bailable warrants and process under Sections 82 & 83 Cr.P.C. against applicant is against law. Learned Magistrate has not recorded required satisfaction before issuance of non-bailable warrants or before issuing process under Sections 82 & 83 Cr.P.C. Referring to facts of the matter, it was submitted that impugned orders are against facts and law and thus liable to be quashed. Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Anshul Kumar Singhal Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Ankit Kakkar .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. and Another .....Opposite Party(s) 4. Learned AGA has opposed the application and submitted that there is no illegality or perversity in the impugned orders. 5. I have considered the rival submissions and perused the record. 6. Perusal of record shows that by impugned order dated 12.11.2024 non- bailable warrants have been issued against applicant. In the said order, learned Magistrate has recorded proper satisfaction. It was mentioned that Investigating Officer has mentioned that efforts were made to arrest the applicant but he is evading his arrest. The Investigating Officer has submitted affidavit in support of said version. Learned Magistrate has considered all relevant facts and issued non-bailable warrants vide order dated 12.11.2024. 7. By impugned order dated 21.11.2024 process under Section 82 Cr.P.C. has been issued against applicant. In that order it has been mentioned that non-bailable warrants were issued against applicant and that on 12.11.2024 as well as on 15.11.2024 the police raided his house and tried to arrest him but he was not traceable. It was also mentioned that applicant was trying to remove his movable and immovable property. The Investigating Officer has supported said version in his affidavit. Learned Magistrate has recorded proper satisfaction that applicant was continuously absconding and he was evading his arrest and he is not appearing despite issuance of non-bailable warrants. Considering all relevant facts, the process under Section 82 Cr.P.C. was issued against applicant. 8. Similarly, regarding issuance of process under Section 83 Cr.P.C. against applicant vide impugned order dated 17.01.2025, learned Magistrate has discussed all relevant details. It has been mentioned in the said order that earlier non-bailable warrants were issued against applicant but he was evading his arrest and could not be arrested. Thereafter, on 21.11.2024 process under Section 82 Cr.P.C. was issued against him, which was also duly executed and published in local newspaper and efforts were also made NA528 No. 29954 of 2025 2 to arrest the applicant. It was further mentioned that applicant was trying to dispose his movable and immovable property and he is continuously evading his arrest. The Investigating Officer has submitted the affidavit in support of said facts. Learned Magistrate has perused the case diary and considered all relevant facts and process under Section 83 Cr.P.C. was issued by recording appropriate satisfaction. 9. No material illegality or perversity could be shown in the impugned orders. It is well-settled that powers under Section 528 BNSS have to be invoked to make such orders as may be necessary to give effect to any order under the Sanhita or to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise to secure ends of justice. In the instant matter, no such case is made out. The application under Section 528 BNSS lacks merit and thus liable to be dismissed. 10. Accordingly, the application u/s 528 BNSS is dismissed. September 22, 2025 'SP'/- NA528 No. 29954 of 2025 3 (Raj Beer Singh,J.) Digitally signed by :- SANDEEP PAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad