Cr Msc 41/08 //1// In the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan Jaipur Bench ** Cr. Msc. Petition No.41/2008 Amjad Ali Versus State Date of Order ::: 15/01/08 Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajay Rastogi Mr. Ali Mohd. Khan, for petitioner Mr. Arun Sharma, Public Prosecutor Instant petition U/s 482, CrPC has been filed by accused against order dt.31/07/2007 whereby trial Magistrate (ACJM Fatehpur Shekhawati (Sikar) took cognizance of offences U/Ss 366, 376, 342, 120- B, IPC and issued standing warrant of arrest against petitioner & co-accused Hanif Ansari. FIR-65/2004 was registered at PS Ramgarh Sethanpur against petitioner, Hanif Ansari & Firoj Ali and after investigation, challan was submitted for offences U/Ss 366, 376, 342, 120-B, IPC against Firoj Ali and since petitioner & Hanif Ansari have been absconding, proceedings were initiated U/s 82 CrPC and challan against them was submitted U/s 299 CrPC and since then, petitioner is still absconding and has not surrendered so far; and ultimately, vide order impugned dt.31/07/07, cognizance of offences (supra) were taken against petitioner & co-accused Hamid Ansari and standing warrant of their arrest has Cr Msc 41/08 //2// been issued. Counsel for petitioner submits that other accused (Firoj Ali) who surrendered and faced trial, has been finally acquitted by competent court of jurisdiction vide judgment dt.30/11/07 (Ann.3); as such standing warrant of arrest issued vide order impugned is not justified and that apart, petitioner is ready to face trial; therefore, arrest warrant requires interference by this Court. Suffice is to say that after investigation petitioner was not traceable and challan was filed against him and being absconder, standing arrest warrant has been issued and proceedings U/s 82, CrPC have been initiated. If at all other co-accused has been acquitted by trial Judge vide judgment (Ann.3), it is always open for the petitioner to take benefit whereof, if available under law, but this Court does not find justification to interfere in the order impugned taking cognizance, issuing standing warrant of arrest and initiating proceedings U/s 82, CrPC. It is really a sorry state of affairs that proper efforts are not being made for execution of warrants – as a result whereof, there is certainly delay in trial. In the facts of instant case, the petitioner is avoiding service of warrants since the year 2004 Cr Msc 41/08 //3// for one reason or the other, thus this Court is not inclined to interfere in inherent jurisdiction U/s 482, CrPC. Consequently, misc. petition is hereby dismissed. However, since petitioner undertakes to appear and is ready to surrender before Sessions Judge where the case has been committed for trial vide order impugned dt.31/07/07, and if he appears before trial Judge on or before 28/01/08, his application for bail be considered simultaneously and on failure to appear, the trial Court will be free to proceed further for procuring his attendance in accordance with law. (Ajay Rastogi), J. K.Khatri/p.3/41CrMscP08oprty.doc