Allahabad High Court
NABBOO ALI ANSARI AND ANOTHERversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER
- Decided
- Bench
- GAUTAM CHOWDHARY
Holding
The Court refused to quash the non‑bailable warrant and the proceedings, directing the applicants to surrender and seek bail.
Summary
The applicants, practising advocates, were accused in a criminal complaint (sections 420, 467 and 468 IPC) filed by Manjeet Singh arising out of a partition suit they were handling. A non‑bailable warrant was issued against them, and they sought to quash the warrant and the underlying proceedings by filing a Section 528 CrPC application, contending that the matter should have been dealt with under Section 340 CrPC and that the earlier Section 482 application had been dismissed without their knowledge. The High Court held that the matter involved factual disputes and evidence appraisal, and therefore refused to quash the warrant or the proceedings. However, the Court directed the applicants to surrender within three weeks, apply for bail, and stayed the execution of the non‑bailable warrant for that period. The application was consequently disposed of.
Issues considered
- Whether the non‑bailable warrant and the criminal proceedings can be quashed under Section 528 of the CrPC.
- Whether the earlier dismissal of a Section 482 CrPC application bars the present application.
- Whether the complaint constitutes a misuse of the process of law in lieu of proceedings under Section 340 CrPC.
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 340, 482, 528
- Indian Penal Code — s. 420, 467, 468
- U.P. Zilla Adalat & L.R. Act — s. 176
Subjects
- criminal procedure
- non‑bailable warrant
- quash order
- Section 528 CrPC
- Section 482 CrPC
- misuse of process
- bail
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 14665 of 2026
Nabboo Ali Ansari And Another
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P. and Another
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Vinay Bhushan Upadhyay
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.
Court No. - 82
HON'BLE DR. GAUTAM CHOWDHARY, J.
1. Heard Sri Anil Tiwari learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Vinay
Bhushan Upadhyay, learned counsel for the applicants and learned
A.G.A. for the State.
2. The present 482 Cr.P.C. application has been filed praying for quashing
non-bailable-warrant order dated 27.03.2026 passed by learned Chief
Judicial Magistrate, Rampur in Complaint Case No. 3556 of 2008
(Manjeet Singh Vs. Iqbal Singh) under Sections 420, 467, 468 I.P.C.,
Police Station Bilaspur, District Rampur as well as to quash the entire
proceedings of the aforesaid case and also the summoning order dated
19.09.2009 passed in the aforesaid case.
3. Learned counsel for the applicants has contended that the applicants are
practicing Advocates of District Rampur, who had filed a partition suit
under Section 176 of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. on behalf of plaintiffs Iqbal Singh
and others being Original Suit No. 66 of 2006-07 in which, Sri Manjeet
Singh/opposite party no.2 was arrayed as defendant no.3 and that Manjeet
Singh filed a complaint against the applicants and four others, wherein the
applicants were arrayed as accused no.5 and 6 respectively, wherein it has
been alleged that the applicants have filed a fake affidavit and
vakalatnama on behalf of one of the plaintiff namely Narinder Singh, who
had died prior to institution of the suit. He further submits that on the
aforesaid complaint, the applicants were summoned vide order dated
19.02.2009, which was challenged by the applicants by way of filing
Criminal Misc. (482) Application No. 9251 of 2009 in which the further
proceedings were stayed. learned counsel further argued that the aforesaid
suit was withdrawn with a permission to file a fresh vide order dated
23.11.2009. Learned counsel next argued that the aforesaid application
under Section 482 Cr.P.C., was pending before this Court and it appears
that the same was listed on 22.08.2017 and the same was dismissed for
want of prosecution. Learned counsel further argued that the applicants
were not aware of dismissing of the earlier 482 Cr.P.C. application and it
NA528 No. 14665 of 2026
2
only came to their knowledge when bailable warrants were issued against
and as soon as the applicants could approach the concerned authority, in
the meantime non-bailable-warrants have been issued against the
applicants. Learned counsel further argued that at the best proceedings
under Section 340 Cr.P.C., ought to have been initiated against the
applicants instead of filing a complaint and therefore the proceedings are
nothing but misuse of the process of law. It is thus contended that the
entire proceedings are liable to be quashed by this Court.
4. Having heard the learned counsel for the applicants and perused the
materials brought on record, it does not appear to be a fit case praying for
quashing of impugned order as well as proceedings. The prayer praying
for quashing of same is hereby refused, at this stage as the argument
raised by learned counsel for the applicants involves factual disputes and
appraisal of evidence.
5. However, looking at the nature of offence alleged and attending facts
and circumstances of the case, as have been brought on record, it is
directed that if the applicants appear and surrender before the court below
within three weeks from today and apply for bail, their prayer for bail
shall be considered and decided in accordance with law.
6. For a period of three weeks from today, the non-bailable warrant
issued against the applicants shall be kept in abeyance.
7. The present application stands disposed of.
(Dr. Gautam Chowdhary,J.)
April 20, 2026
S.Ali
Digitally signed by :-
SHAUKAT ALI
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…