Swami Prasad Maurya vs State of U.P.

A. Mateen, J.—Heard Sri Nagendra Mohan, learned Counsel for the petitioner, learned Additional Government Advocate as well as Sri Balram Singh, Advocate appearing on behalf of Ex. District Government Counsel.

By means of this petition u/s 482 Cr.P.C., the petitioner has prayed that order dated 31.01.2009 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Rae Bareli in Criminal Revision No. 08 of 2009 insofar as it relates to refusing to stay execution of non-bailable warrants issued against the petitioner by the learned Magistrate, be quashed.

For a proper appreciation of the controversy involved in this petition it would be pertinent to mention the background of the facts as they emerge from the pleadings and arguments of learned Counsel for the parties.

An first information report was lodged way back in the year 1987 against the petitioner and other co-accused and twenty unknown persons at police station Dalmau District Rae Bareli giving rise to crime No. 110 of 1987, under Sections 147 148 149 323 307 332 353 336 427 I.P.C. Investigation ensued and ultimately charge sheet was submitted by the police against the petitioner and other co-accused. During the pendency of the proceedings before the learned Magistrate, the Public Prosecutor on the advice of the State Government moved an application u/s 321 Cr. P. C., for permitting withdrawal from prosecution of the petitioner in respect of the aforesaid offences. This application was rejected. Against rejection of the application u/s 321 Cr.P.C., the petitioner preferred Criminal Revision No. 236 of 2004, which was also dismissed. Thereafter the petitioner preferred to keep mum and the matter kept on lingering. In the meantime, trial against co-accused Raja Ram Bharati proceeded which ended in his acquittal. After acquittal of Raja Ram Bharati in the case relating to the aforesaid crime number, on the advice of the State Government the Public Prosecutor moved yet another application u/s 321 Cr..P.C. seeking permission to withdraw from the prosecution of the petitioner on the ground that since co-accused Raja Ram Bharti has been acquitted, it will be in public interest that the prosecution of the petitioner be permitted to be withdrawn.

The subsequent application moved by the Public Prosecutor u/s 321 Cr.P.C. after consideration of the materials placed before the Judicial Magistrate (Court No. 17) Rae Bareli was rejected by the learned Magistrate vide order dated 22.01.2009, contained in Annexure-2 (at page 10 of the petition) and non-bailable warrants of arrest were issued against the petitioner and the case was fixed for 03.03.2009 for proceeding further. Against said order rejecting application u/s 321 Cr.P.C., the State filed Criminal Revision No. 08 of 2009 before the Sessions Judge, Rae Bareli, who by means of order dated 24.01.2009 admitted the revision for hearing. The State had also moved an application for staying the execution of the non-bailable warrants against the petitioner on which objections were invited by the learned Sessions Judge and the matter was posted for 31.01.2009. On said date, the learned Sessions Judge, after hearing learned Counsel for the parties rejected the application for staying the execution of non-bailable warrants against the petitioner issued by the learned Judicial Magistrate (Court No. 17) , Rae Bareli.

Now the accused Swami Prasad Maurya, has filed this petition before this Court praying therein to quash order dated 31.01.2009 passed by Sessions Judge, Rae Bareli.

The crux of submission made by the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that since the revision has been admitted, as such, it was incumbent upon the learned Sessions Judge concerned to have stayed issuance of non-bailable warrants of arrest against the petitioner by the learned Magistrate. It has further been submitted by Sri Nagendra Mohan, learned Counsel for the petitioner that non-bailable warrants have been issued against the petitioner directly without first issuing summons/notices or bailable warrants. Sri Nagendra Mohan in the alternative submitted that the order issuing non-bailable warrants of arrest against the petitioner may be kept in abeyance. It is also submitted by Sri Nagendra Mohan, learned Counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is a sitting Minister in the State Government. In rebuttal, Sri Balram Singh submitted that the offence relates to the year 1987 and till date, due to dilatory methods adopted by the petitioner, the case has yet not been committed to Sessions and in case execution of non-bailable warrants is stayed or are kept in abeyance, the committal proceedings pending before the learned Magistrate would not see the light of the day.

I have given my anxious consideration to the rival contentions of the learned Counsel for the parties.

From the narration of facts made above, it is evident that the petitioner has approached this Court u/s 482 Cr.P.C. feeling aggrieved against issuance of non-bailable warrants by the learned Magistrate on 22.01.2009 and refusal to stay execution of the non-bailable warrants by the learned Sessions Judge. It is admitted to the parties that the offence relates to the year 1987. It also comes out from the order of the revisional Court dated 31.01.2009 that the petitioner has been appearing before the court concerned through his counsel and has moved many applications before the court concerned. However, the trial which is exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions has yet not been committed to the Court of Sessions. It appears that due to this reason, the learned Judicial Magistrate while rejecting the application of the State moved u/s 321 Cr.P.C. had issued non-bailable warrants of arrest against the petitioner. Thus, in my opinion, the learned Sessions Judge has rightly refused to grant the relief of staying execution of the non-bailable warrants issued by the learned Magistrate against the petitioner.

So far as the second limb of arguments of Sri Nagendra Mohan that non-bailable warrants have been issued against the petitioner directly without first issuing summons/notices or bailable warrants is concerned, the same has been rebutted by Sri Balram Singh, Advocate who emphatically stated that on earlier occasions too, non-bailable warrants of arrest have been issued against the petitioner, but he never appeared before the court concerned and thus, is creating hindrance in committal of the case to the Sessions on one pretext or the other.

Let the things be as they are, much water has flown since 1987. It is the admitted position that the case is pending since 1987 and has yet not been committed to the Sessions. There appears to be no justifiable reason to keep the matter pending to be committed to the Sessions for an indefinite period. The apex Court as well as this Court has time and again issued directions in various pronouncements to all the Magistrates for immediately committing the cases to the Sessions after completing the committal proceedings.

So far as the submission of Sri Nagendra Mohan that the petitioner is a sitting Minister in the government of Uttar Pradesh, suffice to mention that the cardinal principle enunciated by the pronouncements of Courts is that in criminal proceedings, no one is above law.

Before parting with the case, it would not be out of place to mention that a duty is cast upon the Courts to protect the administration of criminal justice against abuse or misuse and also to see whether the implication is bona fide or collusive. The facts of the case, as narrated above, go to show that the petitioner in collusion with the State has manipulated to thwart the process of law.

Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, I do not find any force in the submissions of the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the issuance of non-bailable warrants against the petitioner is not justified in view of the observations made by the learned revisional Court that the petitioner has been appearing before the court concerned through counsel and had moved various applications. The order of learned Sessions Judge refusing to grant interim relief clearly speaks the reason for not granting said relief. I do not find any illegality in the order dated 31.01.2009 passed by the learned Sessions Judge Rae Bareli.

The petition is accordingly dismissed. The petitioner shall appear before the court of the learned Judicial Magistrate (Court No. 13) on 03.03.2009, i. e. the date fixed in the case and the Judicial Magistrate (Court No. 17) Rae Bareli shall forthwith commit the case to the Court of Sessions in accordance with law after completing necessary formalities. The Court of Sessions shall thereafter proceed with the trial.