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

Most viewed this month

The recovery of vehicles by the financier not an offence - SC

Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 8907  of 2009 Anup Sarmah (Petitioner) Vs Bhola Nath Sharma & Ors.(Respondents) The petitioner submitted that  respondents-financer had forcibly taken away the vehicle financed by them and  illegally deprived the petitioner from its lawful possession  and  thus,  committed  a crime. The complaint filed by the petitioner had been  entertained  by  the Judicial Magistrate (Ist Class), Gauhati (Assam) in Complaint Case  No.  608 of 2009, even directing the interim custody of the vehicle (Maruti  Zen)  be given to the petitioner vide order dated  17.3.2009.  The respondent on approaching the Guwahati High  Court against this order, the hon'ble court squashed the criminal  proceedings  pending   before  the  learned Magistrate. After hearing both sides, the Hon'ble Supreme Court decided on 30th...

Valuation Report of Jewellery once made is effective for Four Assessment Years

The division Bench of the Delhi High Court in Pr.Commissioner of Wealth Tax vs. Raghu Hari Dalmia held that a valuation report made by a registered valuer once adopted shall be in effect for four assessment years unless an event has occurred whereby the value is increased or decreased. The High Court made it clear that the event of “search” under Section 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 cannot compel the assessee to undertake a fresh valuation.

Mere Agreement To Sell The Leased Property To Tenant Would Not Terminate Landlord-Tenant Relationship

In CIVIL APPEAL Nos. 1237­1238 OF 2019, Dr. H.K. Sharma vs Shri Ram Lal, the tenant had objected against the eviction suit filed by the landlord, claiming that the landlord-tenant relationship between them had ceased to exist by virtue of an agreement for sale entered between them and that he has already paid some money in advance based on the agreement. The tenant contented as the landlord-tenant relationship did not exist, the landlord cannot evict him. The matter went through various forums and finally landed before the Supreme Court in appeal. The Supreme Court referring to the judgment in Shah Mathuradas Maganlal & Co. vs. Nagappa Shankarappa Malage & Ors., held that in the instant case the lease agreement included no clauses on the fate of the tenancy. A fortiori, the parties did not intend to surrender the tenancy rights despite entering into an agreement of sale of the tenanted property. In other words, if the parties really intended to surrender their tenancy ...