AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
No AI summary yet
Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.
Judgment
5 paragraphs · 196 wordsVirendra Saran, J.—Heard learned counsel for the applicant and the learned State Counsel.
The present application under Section 482 Cr. P.C. has been preferred for quashing the order dated 1242001 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, Ambedkar Nagar in Criminal Case No.427 of 2000 under Section 352/324/323/504/506IPC.
The learned Magistrate has issued nonbailable warrants and process under Section 82 Cr. P.C. against the applicant who has failed to appear in Court. An application had been moved before the learned Magistrate that the applicant is serving abroad and his personal attendance may be exempted and he be allowed to appear through counsel. That application was rejected by the learned Magistrate.
Considering the fact that the applicant is serving in abroad, a reasonable view should be taken. Accordingly, the impugned order of learned Magistrate issuing nonbailable warrants and process under Section 82 Cr. P.C. is set aside and it is directed that the learned Magistrate shall give a date after three months in both the two crosscases to enable the applicant to return from foreign land where he is serving and appear in the Court.
With the above directions this application is finally disposed of.