Awani Kumar Sinha v. State of Uttarakhand and Others

The record reveals that the Applicant had earlier challenged the FIR by filing a criminal writ petition before this Court, which came to be dismissed on 17.02.2014. Thereafter, proceedings under Sections 82 and 83 of the Code of Criminal Procedure were initiated against the Applicant, and non-bailable warrants were issued. The Applicant challenged the said action by filing Criminal Revision No. 91 of 2015, which was ultimately dismissed by judgment dated 08.05.2019 on the ground of non-maintainability, without adjudication on the merits of the allegations.

5. Meanwhile, the criminal case against the charge-sheeted accused proceeded to trial. Owing to orders passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court on 14.01.2020, the Sessions Trial was transferred to Patiala House Courts, New Delhi. The trial culminated in the conviction of some accused and the acquittal of others. Criminal appeals against the said judgment are pending before the High Court of Delhi. At no stage of trial was the Applicant summoned or arrayed as an accused.

6. The learned Magistrate, by order dated 01.06.2024, issued a non- bailable warrant against the Applicant.The Applicant challenged the said order before this Court by filing a Criminal Misc. Application No. 678 of 2024, which was dismissed by order dated 03.12.2024, though liberty was granted to the Applicant to approach the Trial Court by filing an application for recall of the non-bailable warrant and/or for regular bail, with interim protection. 2 Second Criminal Misc. Application No.1740 of 2025-Awani Kumar Sinha Vs. State of Uttarakhand and Others. Ashish Naithani J.

7. In compliance with the liberty so granted, the Applicant filed an application for recall of the non-bailable warrant before the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st, Dehradun. The said application was rejected by order dated 22.03.2025. A criminal revision was thereafter preferred. The revisional court initially stayed the operation of the warrant but eventually dismissed the revision by judgment dated 08.09.2025, which is the subject matter of challenge in the present petition.

8. It is relevant to note that the present application is the second petition filed by the Applicant under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. The earlier application, being Criminal Misc. Application (C-528) No. 678 of 2024, was dismissed by this Court on 03.12.2024 with liberty to the Applicant to avail appropriate remedies before the trial court. The present petition has been instituted thereafter, challenging the subsequent orders passed by the learned Magistrate and the revisional court pursuant to the liberty so granted.

9. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records.

10. Learned counsel for the Applicant submits that the Applicant is neither named in the FIR nor has he been charge-sheeted after completion of the investigation. The charge-sheet dated 16.01.2014 was filed only against the co-accused persons, and no supplementary charge-sheet was ever submitted against the Applicant. There is also no material to indicate that the investigation against the Applicant was kept pending, making the very foundation for issuing coercive process legally unsustainable 3 Second Criminal Misc. Application No.1740 of 2025-Awani Kumar Sinha Vs. State of Uttarakhand and Others. Ashish Naithani J.

11. It is further argued that issuance of a non-bailable warrant after an unexplained delay of more than eleven years, despite the Applicant not being summoned to face trial, amounts to a mechanical exercise of jurisdiction and abuse of process of law. The Applicant is a senior citizen, a permanent resident, and has never been declared a proclaimed offender. The learned Magistrate failed to consider these relevant circumstances while rejecting the recall application.

12. Learned counsel also contends that the revisional court erred in affirming the Magistrate’s order without examining whether coercive process could be continued against a person who is not facing trial. It is submitted that continuation of such proceedings causes serious prejudice to the Applicant and defeats the ends of justice, warranting interference by this Court under Section 528 of BNSS.

13. Per contra, learned counsel for the State submits that the Applicant avoided appearance before the trial court despite the issuance of process, compelling the investigating agency to seek the issuance of a non-bailable warrant.

14. It is further argued that the Applicant has repeatedly approached different forums seeking to stall the proceedings. The earlier criminal Misc. Application, the recall application before the Magistrate, and the criminal revision were all dismissed by reasoned orders. The Applicant, instead of surrendering before the court concerned, has adopted dilatory tactics, which disentitles him to discretionary relief.

15. Learned counsel lastly submits that the inherent powers under Section 528 BNSS are extraordinary in nature and cannot be invoked as 4 Second Criminal Misc. Application No.1740 of 2025-Awani Kumar Sinha Vs. State of Uttarakhand and Others. Ashish Naithani J. a substitute for statutory remedies. Since the Applicant has an efficacious remedy of appearing before the trial court and seeking appropriate relief, no exceptional circumstance is made out for interference, and the application deserves dismissal.

16. This Court has considered the rival submissions and has carefully perused the entire record. The issue involved is not merely the recall of a non-bailable warrant but concerns the limits of criminal court jurisdiction in sustaining coercive process against a person who has never been placed before the court as an accused through a police report.

17. Issuance of a non-bailable warrant is an extreme measure to be resorted to only where the court is satisfied that the presence of an accused cannot be secured by less coercive means and that such a person is deliberately evading the process of law. The foundational requirement for issuance of such a warrant is that the person concerned is legally liable to be proceeded against before the court.

18. In the present case, the charge-sheet submitted in the year 2014 does not array the Applicant as an accused. It also does not record that the investigation against the Applicant was kept pending or that further investigation would be undertaken against him. No supplementary charge-sheet has been filed in the intervening period. Even during the lengthy trial proceedings, no material surfaced prompting prosecution to seek the summoning of the Applicant under the appropriate statutory provision. 5 Second Criminal Misc. Application No.1740 of 2025-Awani Kumar Sinha Vs. State of Uttarakhand and Others. Ashish Naithani J.

19. The mere description of “arrest pending” in police records cannot confer a perpetual authority upon the Investigating Agency to keep a citizen under the threat of coercive criminal process indefinitely, particularly when the investigation has culminated in submission of a police report, and the trial itself has concluded. Criminal process cannot be allowed to remain alive in terrorem.

20. The learned Magistrate, while rejecting the recall application, failed to address this fundamental jurisdictional defect. The revisional court, in turn, confined its scrutiny to a limited supervisory review without examining whether continuation of a non-bailable warrant, after more than a decade of inaction and after conclusion of trial, was legally sustainable.

21. The earlier dismissal of the Applicant’s petitions cannot validate a continuing illegality. Past orders cannot sanctify a present abuse of process, particularly where subsequent developments, including the conclusion of the trial and the absence of any supplementary police report, have materially altered the legal position.

22. This Court is mindful that inherent jurisdiction under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita is to be exercised sparingly. However, where the record itself demonstrates that the criminal process is being employed without jurisdictional foundation and results in manifest injustice, this Court would be failing in its duty if it declines to intervene.

23. The present case clearly falls within the category where continuation of proceedings amounts to an abuse of the process of the 6 Second Criminal Misc. Application No.1740 of 2025-Awani Kumar Sinha Vs. State of Uttarakhand and Others. Ashish Naithani J. court. The non-bailable warrant dated 01.06.2024, the order dated

22.03.2025 rejecting its recall, and the revisional judgment dated

08.09.2025 sustaining the same cannot be permitted to stand.

24. Accordingly, this Court holds that the judgment and order dated 08.09.2025 passed by the learned 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Dehradun, in Criminal Revision No. 94 of 2025 suffers from manifest illegality and jurisdictional error and is liable to be set aside. ORDER The Criminal Misc. Application is allowed. The judgment and order dated 08.09.2025 passed by the learned 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Dehradun, in Criminal Revision No. 94 of 2025, and the order dated 22.03.2025 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st, Dehradun, are hereby set aside. The non-bailable warrant dated 01.06.2024, issued against the Applicant in Misc. Criminal Case No. 1553 of 2024 is quashed. It is clarified that this order shall not preclude the Investigating Agency from taking recourse to law strictly in accordance with statutory provisions, if any fresh material so warrants. Arti (Ashish Naithani J.) 21.11.2025 7 Second Criminal Misc. Application No.1740 of 2025-Awani Kumar Sinha Vs. State of Uttarakhand and Others. Ashish Naithani J.