Skip to main content

Accused need not be present for arrest warrant cancellation: HC

The Bombay High Court came down heavily on lower court judges, for blindly rejecting applications of cancellation of arrest warrants when the accused is not present. The High Court, on December 24, ruled that in such situations, orders must be passed on the basis of merit.

"There is no law stating that the accused should personally remain present for cancellation of a warrant. If the lawyer makes an application for cancellation of a warrant, it needs to be considered on merits by the Magistrate, without insisting the appearance of the applicant or accused," said Justice M L Tahaliyani.

The court was hearing an application filed by businessman Arun Kumar Chaturvedi, who is an accused in a cheque-bouncing case. Chaturvedi has not attended hearing in his case for the past one and a half years, due to which a non-bailable warrant was issued against him by a magistrate's court in Dadar.

His lawyer approached the court to cancel the arrest warrant against him, assuring the court that he would be present when the case is heard next.

But the plea was rejected on December on the grounds that Chaturvedi was not present to cancel his warrant. "Since the applicant was ready to appear before the Magistrate after cancellation of warrant, and there was reasonable apprehension that he might be arrested if he came to court, the Magistrate should have heard the application on the basis of merit," the court observed.

He further instructed that a copy of this order be circulated to all citybased magistrates. "Many petitions are filed in this court only because the learned Magistrate straightaway takes aview that the warrant cannot be cancelled unless the accused appears before the court. The view taken by a few is not correct. It is high time that this court lets the Magistrate note that the appearance of the applicant or the accused is not necessary when application for cancellation of warrant is made," the court stated.

Comments

Post a Comment

Most viewed this month

One Sided Clauses In Builder-Buyer Agreements Is An Unfair Trade Practice

In CIVIL APPEAL NO. 12238 OF 2018, Pioneer Urban Land & Infrastructure Ltd. vs Govindan Raghavan, an appeal was filed before the Supreme Court  by the builder against the order of the National Consumer Forum. The builder had relied upon various clauses of the Apartment Buyer’s Agreement to refute the claim of the respondent but was rejected by the commission which found the said clauses as wholly one-sided, unfair and unreasonable, and could not be relied upon. The Supreme Court on perusal of the Apartment Buyer’s Agreement found stark incongruities between the remedies available to both the parties. For example, Clause 6.4 (ii) of the Agreement entitles the Appellant – Builder to charge Interest @18% p.a. on account of any delay in payment of installments from the Respondent – Flat Purchaser. Clause 6.4 (iii) of the Agreement entitles the Appellant – Builder to cancel the allotment and terminate the Agreement, if any installment remains in arrears for more than 30 da...
Post a Comment
Read more

Inherited property of childless hindu woman devolve onto heirs of her parents

In Tarabai Dagdu Nitanware vs Narayan Keru Nitanware, quashing an order passed by a joint civil judge junior division, Pune, the Bombay High Court has held that under Section 15 of the Hindu Succession Act, any property inherited by a female Hindu from her father or mother, will devolve upon the heirs of her father/mother, if she dies without any children of her own, and not upon her husband. Justice Shalini Phansalkar Joshi was hearing a writ petition filed by relatives of one Sundarabai, who died issueless more than 45 years ago on June 18, 1962. Article referred:http://www.livelaw.in/property-inherited-female-hindu-parents-shall-devolve-upon-heirs-father-not-husband-dies-childless-bombay-hc-read-judgment/
Post a Comment
Read more

Court approached in the early stages of arbitration will prevail in all other subsequent proceedings

In National Highway Authority of India v. Hindustan Steelworks Construction Limited, the Hon'ble Delhi High Court opined that once the parties have approached a certain court for relief under Act at earlier stages of disputes then it is same court that, parties must return to for all other subsequent proceedings. Language of Section 42 of Act is categorical and brooks no exception. In fact, the language used has the effect of jurisdiction of all courts since it states that once an application has been made in Part I of the Act then ―that Court alone shall have jurisdiction over arbitral proceedings and all subsequent applications arising out of that agreement and arbitral proceedings shall be made in that Court and in no other Court. Court holds that NHAI in present case cannot take advantage of Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963 for explaining inordinate delay in filing present petition under Section 34 of this Act in this Court.
Post a Comment
Read more