2026:UHC:3758 SL. No. Dat e Office Not es, r epor t s, or der s or pr oceedin gs or dir ect ion s an d Regist r ar ’s or der w it h Sign at u r es COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS C528 No.1017 of 2026 Hon ’ble Alok Mah r a, J. Mr. Balvinder Singh, Advocate for the applicant. Mrs. Pushpa Bhatt, Additional Advocate General and Mr. S.C. Dumka, A.G.A. for the State of Uttarakhand. 2. Present C-528 application is filed with the prayer to set-aside/ quash the charge sheet dated 11.03.2020, cognizance/ summoning order dated 06.06.2020 and the entire proceedings of Criminal Case No.1165 of 2020, pending in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate, Nainital. 3. Record reveals that respondent no.2 got registered an N.C.R. against the applicant on 23.10.2019 for the offences punishable under Sections 323 and 504 I.P.C. After investigation, charge sheet was submitted against the applicant and learned Magistrate, upon perusal of the material collected during investigation, took cognizance and summoned the applicant to face the trial. Since the applicant did not appear before the Court concerned, bailable warrants were issued and, thereafter, vide order dated 08.04.2022, Non-Bailable Warrants were issued against the applicant. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the Non-Bailable Warrants issued against the applicant were never duly served upon her and, despite the same, coercive steps were repeatedly taken by learned trial Court. It is further submitted that subsequently standing warrant was issued on 23.11.2022 and the same continued to be extended from time-to- time. Ultimately, the applicant appeared before the Court on 17.03.2023 and was enlarged on bail. Learned counsel further submits that thereafter also bailable warrants and Non- Bailable Warrants were issued against the applicant, although she was suffering from Asthma and could not regularly appear before 2026:UHC:3758 the Court. It is also submitted that proceedings under Sections 82/ 83 Cr.P.C. were initiated vide order dated 06.04.2026 without there being sufficient justification and the impugned proceedings deserve to be quashed. 5. Per contra, learned State Counsel submits that the applicant has continuously avoided appearance before the learned trial Court and, despite issuance of several bailable and Non- Bailable Warrants, she did not cooperate in the proceedings. It is submitted that reports available on record indicate that the applicant was repeatedly changing her address at Delhi and, therefore, warrants could not be executed. Learned State Counsel further submits that the learned Magistrate was constrained to adopt coercive measures only due to persistent non- appearance of the applicant and no illegality has been committed in issuing warrants or initiating proceedings under Sections 82/ 83 Cr.P.C. 6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and upon perusal of the record, this Court does not find any good ground to interfere in exercise of inherent jurisdiction. At the stage of cognizance and summoning, learned Magistrate is only required to examine whether prima facie material exists for proceeding against the accused. A meticulous appreciation of evidence is neither warranted nor permissible at this stage. From the material collected during investigation, prima facie commission of offences under Sections 323 and 504 I.P.C. is made out against the applicant and, therefore, learned Magistrate has rightly taken cognizance and summoned the applicant to face the trial. So far as issuance of coercive processes is concerned, record indicates that the applicant remained absent before the learned trial Court for a considerable period and, despite issuance of bailable warrants and Non-Bailable Warrants, she failed to appear. Even after appearing and obtaining bail on 17.03.2023, the applicant again defaulted in appearance, compelling the Court to issue further coercive measures. The explanation sought to be furnished regarding illness cannot be accepted in absence of any sufficient material showing that the applicant was continuously incapacitated from appearing 2026:UHC:3758 before the Court. Proceedings under Sections 82/ 83 Cr.P.C. are initiated when an accused deliberately avoids appearance before the Court. From the conduct of the applicant, it cannot be said that learned trial Court acted arbitrarily or without jurisdiction while initiating such proceedings. No procedural illegality or perversity is apparent from the impugned orders. 7. It is settled law that inherent powers under Section 528 B.N.S.S. are to be exercised sparingly and with great caution. The power cannot be invoked to stifle legitimate prosecution or to conduct a mini trial at the threshold. The present case does not fall within any of the categories warranting interference by this Court. 8. Accordingly, the present application lacks merit and is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed. ( Alok Mah r a, J.) 15.05.2026 Arpan ARPAN JAISWAL Digitally signed by ARPAN JAISWAL DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=eabb68a3895e41937c266c23964c0485365445e3 a20dddb7393398f9fe45ba3e, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=060FC17022BEAE3DE215D68D9D454C5109 CB987446351E4DF04AADAA2C2CEA66, cn=ARPAN JAISWAL Date: 2026.05.15 16:16:35 +05'30'