CRIMINAL PET IT ION No. 12274 of 2011 · Andhra Pradesh High Court
Case at a glance
- Bench
- RAJA ELANGO
Provisions considered
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 s. 482
- Indian Penal Code, 1860 ss. 34, 406, 409, 420
Judgment
This criminal petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is filed by the petitioners-Accused Nos.2 and 3 seeking to quash the docket order dated
02.08.2008 on the file of the I Additional Junior Civil Judge, Narsaraopeta, Guntur District, whereby and where under the learned Judge issued non-bailable warrants against the petitioners. Heard.
Learned counsel for the petitioners prayed this Court to recall the non-bailable warrants, which were issued against the petitioners and further submits that the petitioners are ready and willing to appear before the court and to face the trial. In the present case, the charge levelled against the petitioners is under Sections 406, 409, 420 read with 34 IPC. After completion of due investigation, investigation agency filed charge sheet in this matter. While filing charge sheet, the petitioners were shown as absconding. Hence, the trial Court issued non-bailable warrants against them. Considering the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners are ready and willing to appear before the court and face the trial, the petitioners are directed to surrender before the trial Court and file an application seeking to recall the non-bailable warrants issued against them, upon which, the learned trial Judge is directed to recall the same on the same day. Petitioners are further directed to appear on subsequent dates before the court below regularly till completion of trial. With the above observation, the Criminal Petition is disposed of. Miscellaneous petitions filed in this Criminal Petition, if any, shall stand closed. ___________________ JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO 30t h November 2011 Rns
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.