IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. WJC No.751 of 2010 N. K. PAREKH, son of Late Kalyanji Paresh, Joint Managing Director, M/s Pidilite Industries Limited, Regent Chambers, 7th Floor, 208 Nariman Point, Jamnalal Bajaj Marg, Mumbai-21. . . . . . . . Petitioner. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH LAW SECRETARY 2. Kailash Prasad S/o Late Kalicharan Ram, Proprietor M/s Kailash Sindur Products, Tara Agrawal Market, Khajekalan, Patna. . . . . . .Respondents. ----------- 7/ 06.09.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the informant. In the instant writ application, the petitioner has prayed for cancelling the Non-bailable warrant of arrest dated 26.04.2010 issued in Complaint case no. 543 of 2009, filed by Mr. Kailash Prasad, who is Proprietor of M/s Kailash Sindur Products under Sections 420, 406, 120B of the Indian Penal Code. On 02.09.2009, cognizance was taken under Sections 420, 406 and 120(B) of the Indian Penal Code and the accused persons named in the Complaint were summoned to face trial. The office was also directed to issue summons on filing of such requisites. Learned counsel submits that on 10.09.2009, the learned Magistrate directed for issuance of summons. On 23.10.2009 bailable warrant of arrest was issued and thereafter on 26.04.2010 non-bailable warrant of arrest was issued. He further submits that both bailable warrant and non-bailable warrant has been issued without ensuring receipt of service of summons on petitioner. The petitioner has annexed Annexure-5, which is a 2 communication dated 07.06.2010 of Senior Inspector of Police, Marine Drive Police Station, Mumbai. In the aforesaid communication, he had stated that they have not received any Summons and / or Warrants against the petitioner. The informant has filed counter affidavit. It has been stated in paragraph nos. 5 and 6 of the counter affidavit that summons were issued on the address of the petition and both bailable and non-bailable warrant were issued through the office of Commissioner of Police, Mumbai and as such the Marine Drive Police Station, Mumbai may not be aware of the same. He further submits that the petitioner has been allowed anticipatory bail. It appears that on 10.09.2009 requisites were filed for issuance of summons to the petitioner. On the next date i.e. 23.10.2009 bailable warrant of arrest was issued without recording satisfaction regarding receipt of summons. Similarly non-bailable warrant was issued on the next date i.e. 26.04.2010 again without recording satisfaction regarding receipt of bailable warrant of arrest. In this view of the matter, the impugned order issuance of bailable warrant and non-bailable warrant are set aside. Now that the petitioner is aware of the proceeding of the court, he would co-operate in the same. The learned Magistrate would proceed in the matter in accordance with law. Uday/ (Samarendra Pratap Singh, J.)