Randhir Singh vs State of Uttarakhand

Hon''ble Prafulla C. Pant, J.—Heard.

By means of this petition, moved u/s 482 Cr.P.C., the petitioners have sought quashing of order dated 13.09.2011, passed by the Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division)/ Judicial Magistrate Roorkee-Hardwar, in Criminal Case No. 2290 of 2011. Also, order dated 20.09.2011, passed by the revisional court is challenged.

From the perusal of the papers on record, it appears that respondent No.2 Bhanwar Singh,respondent No.3 Ninis Singh Bhati and respondent No. 4 Mintoo Singh Bhati are facing trial in respect of offences punishable u/s 307, 323, 506 I.P.C., registered at Police Station- Kotwali Manglor, District Hardwar. Said Criminal Case No. 2290 of 2011, is pending before the Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division)/ Judicial Magistrate, Roorkee, District-Hardwar. It further appears that the three accused are absconding, and after issuance of non bailable warrant processes u/s 82-83 of Cr.P.C., now case is fixed for recording of evidence u/s 299 of Cr.P.C.

The impugned order shows that the complainant and injured (petitioner) moved an application dated 08.09.2011, before the trial court, disclosing new addresses of the three accused i.e. H-43, Gama IInd, Greater Noida, District- Gautam Budh Nagar, Uttar Pradesh, and requested the court to issue the processes against the accused on said address. But the Magistrate has rejected the said application, only on the ground that the case is fixed for recording of evidence at the stage of 299 Cr.P.C.

Having considered submissions of learned counsel for the petitioners, and the learned counsel for the State and after going through the impugned order, this Court finds that the Magistrate has not kept in mind the spirit of administration of justice. Merely for the reason that the case fixed for recording of evidence, u/s 299 of Cr.P.C., it cannot be said that if the new address of the accused has been made available, processes should not be issued against them. Ultimate object of law, is to administer the justice and to punish the guilty, if proved. Had the complainant and the injured not disclosed the new address of the three accused in their application dated 08.09.2011, the Magistrate would have been well within his jurisdiction, recorded statements of the witnesses u/s 299 of Cr.P.C., after the accused were declared absconders and their availability was not feasible, so that in future whenever they are arrested, the evidence can be read against them. But in the present case the complainant and the injured have given information to the court about the latest address of the accused, as such, the Magistrate, should have issued non bailable warrants and other processes against the three accused on the new address supplied by the complainant.

For the reasons as discussed above, impugned order dated 13.09.2011, is liable to be quashed. The revisional court''s order requires no interference as revision was simply dismissed on the ground that it was not maintainable against the interlocutory order. Therefore, the petition u/s 482 Cr.P.C., is allowed, impugned order dated 13.09.2011, passed by the Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division)/ Judicial Magistrate Roorkee-Hardwar, in Criminal Case No. 2290 of 2011, is set aside, and the Magistrate is directed to pass fresh orders on application dated 08.09.2011, in the light of the observation made above by this Court.