Mr. Niranjan Singh or & Anr. v. State of Uttranchal (2007(3) CJ (SC) Cr. 944) and further adopted & Ors.

Mr. Niranjan Singh or the petitioners. Mr. K.R. Bishnoi, Public Prosecutor for the State. Mr. R.S.Choudhary for respondent. BY THE COURT: This revision petition has been filed against the order dated 10.7.2012 whereby the application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. has been allowed and the cognizance has been taken against the present petitioners for the offences under Sections 148, 302/149, 324,149 IPC. The only contention of the present petitioners is that they have been called from non-bailable warrants and looking 2 to the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex in the case of Inder Mohan Goswami & anr. v. State of Uttranchal & ors. (2007(3) CJ (SC) Cr. 944) and further adopted in Sukhdev Singh & ors. v. State of Rajasthan & anr. ( 2012(3) CJ(Cri.)(Raj.) 1132) the present petitioners should be called through summons. Per contra the contention of the learned Public Prosecutor is that there is no infirmity in the impugned order. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Public Prosecutor for the State and perused the material available on record. It is not in dispute that cognizance has been taken against the present petitioners for the offence under Section 302 read with Section 149 IPC and other offences and the Apex Court in the case of Inder Mohan Goswami's case (supra) held as under:- “The power being discretionary must be exercised judiciously with extreme care and caution. The court should properly balance both personal liberty and societal interest before issuing warrants. There cannot be any straight-jacket formula for 3 issuance of warrants but as a general rule, unless an accused is charged with the commission of an offence of a heinous crime and it is feared that he is likely to tamper or destroy the evidence or is likely to evade the process of law, issuance of non-bailable warrants should be avoided.”( emphasis supplied). A bare reading of above shows that when the accused person is charged for commission of heinous offence, the issuance of warrant is not unwarranted. In the present case, when the cognizance has been taken against the present petitioners for the offence under Section 302 and other offences, there is no perversity in the impugned order in calling the present petitioners by non-bailable warrant. Further more, the present petitioners are aware of the impugned order and they are free to surrender before the court below. Hence the question of calling the present petitioners by any mode has become irrelevant. In view of the above, this revision petition is hereby dismissed. mlt/103 (NISHA GUPTA ),J.