The Allahabad High Court has set aside an order of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kanpur Nagar, which simultaneously issued non-bailable warrants and initiated proceedings under Sections 82 and 83 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) against an accused without recording the required satisfaction. The Court held that such an order is perverse and contrary to law.
Background of the Case
The matter arose in Application U/S 528 BNSS No. 9806 of 2025, filed by Devendra Singh against the State of Uttar Pradesh and another. The case originated from proceedings under Sections 452, 323, 504, 506, 427, and 392 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) in Case No. 395 of 2014 (Manorma Singh v. Devendra Singh), registered at Police Station Kalyanpur, District Kanpur Nagar.
Previously, the High Court had stayed the trial proceedings in 2016 through an application under Section 482 CrPC (Application No. 1438 of 2016). However, that application was dismissed for want of prosecution on May 29, 2024, and a recall application remains pending.
On February 20, 2025, the trial court issued non-bailable warrants and simultaneously initiated proceedings under Sections 82 and 83 CrPC against Devendra Singh.
Arguments of the Parties
Counsel for the applicant contended that the impugned order was passed without recording any satisfaction as required by law, rendering it illegal. It was argued that the simultaneous issuance of non-bailable warrants and process under Sections 82 and 83 CrPC was done in haste and without following the mandatory procedure.
The Government Advocate opposed the application and maintained that the order passed by the trial court suffered from no illegality.
Court’s Analysis
Justice Raj Beer Singh observed that it is a well-established legal principle that proclamation under Section 82 CrPC and attachment under Section 83 CrPC can be issued simultaneously only if the court is satisfied that the accused is about to dispose of or remove his property, and such satisfaction must be recorded in the order.
The Court referred to the case of Indra Mani Pandey v. State of U.P., Application under Section 482 CrPC No. 25200 of 2012, decided on October 5, 2012, wherein it was held that:
“There must be a report before the Magistrate that the person against whom the warrant was issued had absconded or was concealing himself… The normal rule is that the Court has to wait until the expiry of 30 days, to enable the accused to appear in terms of the proclamation… Thus, proclamation issued under Section 82/83 Cr.P.C. by the trial court is against the mandatory provisions of law.”
Applying this principle, the Court found that:
“The learned Magistrate has not recorded any satisfaction for issuance of process under Section 82 Cr.P.C. and much less for issuance of process under Sections 82 & 83 Cr.P.C. simultaneously… The learned Magistrate fell in grave legal error by issuing those processes simultaneously.”
Decision
Setting aside the impugned order dated February 20, 2025, the Court directed the Magistrate to pass a fresh order on the complainant’s application in accordance with law. The application under Section 528 BNSS was accordingly allowed.
Citation: Devendra Singh v. State of U.P. and Another, Neutral Citation No. 2025:AHC:46291, decided on April 3, 2025, before Justice Raj Beer Singh, Court No. 71, High Court of Judicature at Allahabad.
