IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.65 of 2008 (U/s 482 Of Cr.P.C.) Abhishek Agnihotri @ Vicky S/o Amarnath Agnihotri, R/o H.N. 397, Near Blue Bells School Ramnagar, P.S. Gangnehar, Roorkee ……Applicant Versus 1. State of Uttarakhand 2. Smt. Manorama Sharma W/o D.R. Sharma R/o Kashipuri, Dehradun Road, P.S. Gangnehar Roorkee, Distt. Hardwar ……. Respondents Dated: 24.01.2008 Sri Navneet Kaushik, learned counsel for the applicant Sri G.S. Sandhu, learned GA for the State HON. DHARAM VEER,J. This is an application moved u/s 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter to be referred as Cr.P.C.) for setting aside the impugned order dated 20.12.2007 passed by Judicial Magistrate, Roorkee in Case No. 1367 of 2005, whereby the learned Judicial Magistrate has issued non- bailable warrant against the applicant and issued notice to sureties . 2. Briefly stated , facts of the case are that an FIR was lodged against the applicant and one other co-accused namely Kuldeep Saraswat by Respondent No.2-Smt. Manorama Sharma on 9.2.2005 for an incident occurred on 26.1.2005 with the allegations that she was living with her husband and was in the profession of teaching and the daughter of complainant namely Kanak Kaushik used to teach in Heritage School Gurgaon, Haryana for a past number of years. It was also stated that during that period, the applicant and co- accused namely Kuldeep Saraswat, alleged to be blackmailers, started to harass her daughter and also developed some false photographs and letters and started to demand money from her daughter. Due to this reason , the daughter of respondent no. 2 left her job in Gurgaon and came back to Roorkee but even after that, they started to call at her residence in Roorkee on telephone. Thereafter, respondent no.2 got her daughter engaged with one Vishal Kaushik and the ring ceremony also took place on 2.11.2004 and the marriage was also fixed for 4.2.2005. However, the applicant and co-accused Kuldeep Saraswat got the marriage of her daughter broken up by showing false papers and demanded Rs.1.00 lacs in extortion and also threatened respondent no.2 that her family will face defamation and also threatened to throw acid on Kanak Kaushik. It was also averted that on 26.1.2005, the applicant along with co-accused Kuldeep entered into her house at about 9:00 P.M. and hurled filthy abuses and demanded Rs. 1.00 lacs from the husband of respondent no.2 and stated that if the same would not be paid to them, then they would kill his daughter or they would throw acid on her. With the same averments, the FIR was lodged at P.S. Gangnaher Roorkee, Distt. Hardwar against the applicant-Abhishek Agnihotri and co-accused Kuldeep Saraswat and the case was registered as Case Crime No.22 of 2005 under Sections 452/504/506/386/ 468/467/471 IPC. Thereafter, the matter was investigated and the charge sheet was filed against the applicant and other co- accused person against which the accused persons preferred a C482 application before this court challenging the charge sheet and the summoning order, but the said application was dismissed by this Court. Thereafter, the applicant and co- accused surrendered before the court concerned and the co- accused was granted bail from the lower court and the applicant was granted bail by this Court on 4.1.2006. Thereafter , the trial was started and the charge was framed against the applicant and co-accused u/s 452/504/506/386/ 468/471 IPC. Against the said order, the applicant and co- accused preferred a criminal revision before District & Sessions Judge, Hardwar. The said revision was admitted by District & Sessions Judge and after hearing the arguments, the judgment was reserved by Sessions Judge , Hardwar . The said revision was dismissed by learned Sessions Judge, Hardwar on 12.9.2007 and the file was sent back to J.M. Roorkee. ON 19.9.2007, the summons were issued to the applicant and other co-accused by the trial court after receipt of the file from Sessions Judge, Hardwar. However, the summons could not be served upon the applicant. Since, the applicant and co-accused did not appear before the trial court, hence the non-bailable warrant was issued against them and notice to sureties was also issued o 20.12.2007 by the order of J.M. Roorkee. Against the said order dated 20.12.2007, the present Application has been preferred before this Court. 3. I have heard Sri Navneet Kaushik, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri G.S. Sandhu, learned GA for the State and perused the material available on record . 4. Sri Navneet Kaushik, learned counsel for the applicant argued that the impugned order dated 20.12.2007 is not sustainable in the eye of law in view of that fact that the applicant had no knowledge about the dismissal of the revision and further there was no service of summon upon him. He further submitted that he was not intentionally or deliberately absent from the court. As such, the applicant could not appear before the trial court on 20.12.2007 and the non-bailable warrant was issued against him and notice was also issued to the sureties. 5. I find force in the argument advanced by learned counsel for the applicant . Since, there was no service of summon upon the applicant and there being no report on record of service of summons, hence the applicant could not get any information about the dismissal of the revision, as such, the impugned order dated 20.12.2007 issuing non-bailable warrant against the applicant and issuing notice to the sureties is not sustainable in the eye of law and is liable to be set aside. Further, the applicant was also on bail by the order of this Court dated 4.1.2006. 6. In view of the above, the order dated 20.12.2007 passed by Judicial Magistrate, Roorkee is hereby set aside. The C482 application is accordingly allowed. The non-bailable warrant issued against the applicant and notice issued to the sureties is hereby cancelled. The applicant is directed to appear before the court below on the next date fixed i.e. 14.2.2008. (Dharam veer,J.) Rajeev Dang