Harsahay Meena and Another vs State of Raj. and Another

M.C. Sharma, J.—This criminal misc. petition has been filed u/s 482 Cr.P.C. by the petitioners against the order dated 30.4.2012 of Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate Shahbad, District Baran in criminal case No. 151/2012 registered upon a protest petition filed by the non-petitioner No. 2, by which the Magistrate took cognizance against the petitioners for the offence under sections 454, 380 and 427 IPC and issued non-bailable warant. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that for a petty matter the Magistrate has issued non-bailable warrant in a matter in which the police has submitted a negative report. After receiving negative report the Judicial Magistrate recorded the statements of the complainant and witnesses u/s 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. took cognizance against the petitioners and further the petitioners have been summoned through non-bailable warrant. This order of the Judicial Magistrate deserves to be quashed and set aside. The learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the judgment of the Apex Court in Inder Mohan Goswami and Another Vs. State of Uttaranchal and Others, . He wants that the cognizance order should not be quashed but at least the non-bailable warrant may be converted into bailable in a very petty matter.

Mr. Peeyush Kumar, learned Public Prosecutor opposed the arguments raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner and has contended that it is the discretion of the Magistrate to issue bailable warrant or non-bailable warrant but the High Court should not interfere in the order passed by the Judicial Magistrate in the inherent jurisdiction of this court u/s 482 Cr.P.C. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and has also gone through the order passed by the trial court. In my view the order passed by the trial court does not call for any interference in the inherent jurisdiction of this court u/s 482 Cr.P.C. In the inherent jurisdiction of this court u/s 482 Cr.P.C. I do not think it proper to interfere with the order passed by the trial court. The criminal misc. petition stands dismissed. However liberty is given to the petitioner to move application for anticipatory bail u/s 438 Cr.P.C. before the Sessions Judge concerned. If the petitioner moves an application u/s 438 Cr.P.C. before the Sessions Judge concerned, the Sessions Judge concerned will consider all the facts mentioned in the criminal misc. petition and decide the bail application in accordance with law. The stay application also stands disposed of.