Allahabad High Court
MUKESH AND 3 OTHERSversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 3 OTHERS
- Decided
- Bench
- VIVEK KUMAR SINGH
Holding
The Court held that the non‑bailable warrant shall be kept in abeyance for four weeks, subject to the applicants appearing before the trial court within that period; otherwise the warrant will be executed.
Summary
The applicants filed an application under Section 528 of the Criminal Procedure Code seeking to quash the cognizance and summons order dated 04‑12‑2024 and the charge‑sheet dated 19‑10‑2024 in a POCSO case (Sections 363, 366, 376, 504, 506 IPC and Sections 3/4 POCSO Act). They claimed they were ready to appear before the trial court but could not do so due to compelling circumstances, leading to the issuance of a non‑bailable warrant on 30‑04‑2026. The State opposed, pointing to repeated non‑appearance. The High Court held that the warrant may be kept in abeyance for four weeks provided the applicants appear before the trial court within that period; failure to do so would result in immediate execution of the warrant. The court ordered the applicants to appear within the stipulated time and disposed of the application.
Issues considered
- What relief, if any, can be granted under Section 528 CrPC to quash the cognizance/summons order and charge‑sheet?
- Whether a non‑bailable warrant issued for failure to appear can be kept in abeyance pending the applicants' appearance before the trial court.
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 528
- Indian Penal Code — s. 363, 366, 376, 504, 506
- Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act — s. 3, 4
Subjects
- Section 528 CrPC
- non‑bailable warrant
- quash order
- POCSO Act
- failure to appear
- abeyance
- criminal procedure
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 47640 of 2025
Mukesh And 3 Others
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. And 3 Others
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Pankaj Kumar Tripathi
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.
Court No. - 80
HON'BLE VIVEK KUMAR SINGH, J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the applicants and learned A.G.A. for the
State.
2. Learned counsel for the applicants is permitted to delete the applicant
no.1 and 3 from the array of parties during the course of the day. Certified
copy of the order-sheet has been produced by the learned counsel for the
applicants, which is taken on record.
3. The present application has been filed by applicants for quashing the
cognizance/summoning order dated 04.12.2024 and chargesheet dated
19.10.2024 as well as entire proceedings of Sessions Case No.1281 of
2024 (State vs. Mukesh and Others), arising out of Case Crime No.397 of
2024, under Sections 363, 366, 376, 504, 506 IPC and Section 3/4
POCSO Act, Police Station Kosikala, District Mathura, pending in the
court of Additional District Judge POCSO Act, Mathura.
4. It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicants that applicants are
ready to appear before the court concerned and on account of compelling
circumstances, they could not appear on the date fixed before the court
concerned, therefore, as a result of the same, non bailable warrant dated
30.04.2026 has been issued against the applicants.
5. Learned counsel for the applicants submitted that applicants undertake
to participate in the trial court's proceedings and they shall remain present
before the court concerned unless the personal presence of the applicants
NA528 No. 47640 of 2025
2
are exempted by the court concerned. It is further submitted by learned
counsel for the applicants that the applicants will cooperate in the trial
court's proceedings.
6. On the other hand learned AGA submits that due to non appearance of
the applicants on several dates, the leaned trial Court proceeded to issue
non bailable warrant against the applicants.
7. In view of the facts of the case, this Court deems it fit that non bailable
warrant issued against the applicants shall be kept in abeyance for a
period of four weeks and applicants shall appear before the court
concerned within the time fixed by this Court. If, the applicants appear
before the court concerned, non bailable warrant shall not be further
executed. However, if the applicants fail to appear or participate in the
trial proceeding within the time fixed by this Court, non bailable warrant
shall be executed against the applicants without delay.
8. In view of the aforesaid, this application is disposed of.
(Vivek Kumar Singh,J.)
May 5, 2026
Nitendra
Digitally signed by :-
NITENDRA TIWARI
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…