Nafees Haider Vs. State of U.P.

Nafees Haider vs State of U.P.

Type Court Judgment Court Allahabad Decided Dec 17, 1990

~2 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/474869

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/474869
Court: Allahabad High Court
Judge: S.I. Jafri, J.
Decided On: Dec 17, 1990
Case Number: Criminal Misc. No. 2258 of 1990
Subject: Criminal

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

- - 2. I have heard Sri Kamal Krishna, learned counsel for the applicant as well as the learned counsel for the State. It would be useful to observe that in cases of petty nature like the present one, the court should have liberal approach as by grant of such exemption, it would result in no harm either to the com...

Key legal issue: Criminal
Acts & sections: Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1974 - Sections 313 and 482

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Nafees Haider

Advocate Kamal Krishna, Adv.

Respondent

State of U.P.

Advocate A.G.A.

Legal References

Acts: Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1974 - Sections 313 and 482
Reported In: 1991CriLJ1690

Excerpt

- - 2. i have heard sri kamal krishna, learned counsel for the applicant as well as the learned counsel for the state. it would be useful to observe that in cases of petty nature like the present one, the court should have liberal approach as by grant of such exemption, it would result in no harm either to the complainant or the state in the conduct of the trial......the state. the learned counsel for the applicant has submitted before the court that the applicant has been serving in saudi arabia and as such it is not possible for the applicant to be present on each and every date in the court below. it is next contended by the learned counsel for the applicant that an application seeking exemption of personal attendance in the court was moved before the c.j.m. jaunpur and while rejecting the application of the applicant, the learned c.j.m. issued non-bailable warrants for securing attendance of the applicant fixing 14-12-1990.3. i have considered the facts and circumstances of the case and taking into account the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant i feel that case for exemption of the applicant's personal attendance in the court below is amply made out. it would be useful to observe that in cases of petty nature like the present one, the court should have liberal approach as by grant of such exemption, it would result in no harm either to the complainant or the state in the conduct of the trial.4. in the result the order dated 27th oct 1990 passed by c.j.m. jaunpur is set aside. the applicant is directed to move fresh application befgore the c.j.m. jaunpur for seeking exemption of his personal attendance in the court below, which the c.j.m. is directed to allow thereby exempting the applicant of his personal attendance in the aforesaid complaint case no. 3700 of 1990. however, the applicant is directed to present himself before the court at the time of recording of his statement under section 313, cr. p.c. and thus, the application is finally disposed of.

Full Judgment

ORDER

S.I. Jafri, J.

1. Instant application has been filed by Nafis Haider Under Section 482, Cr. P.C. praying therein that the order dated 27th Oct. 1990 passed by C. J. M. Jaunpur issuing there-by non-bailable warrants against the applicant in complaint case No. 3700 of 1990. It has also been prayed by the learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant be exempted of his personal attendance in the Court of C.J.M. Jaunpur where the aforesaid case is pending.

2. I have heard Sri Kamal Krishna, learned counsel for the applicant as well as the learned counsel for the State. The learned counsel for the applicant has submitted before the court that the applicant has been serving in Saudi Arabia and as such it is not possible for the applicant to be present on each and every date in the court below. It is next contended by the learned counsel for the applicant that an application seeking exemption of personal attendance in the court was moved before the C.J.M. Jaunpur and while rejecting the application of the applicant, the learned C.J.M. issued non-bailable warrants for securing attendance of the applicant fixing 14-12-1990.

3. I have considered the facts and circumstances of the case and taking into account the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant I feel that case for exemption of the applicant's personal attendance in the court below is amply made out. It would be useful to observe that in cases of petty nature like the present one, the court should have liberal approach as by grant of such exemption, it would result in no harm either to the complainant or the state in the conduct of the trial.

4. In the result the order dated 27th Oct 1990 passed by C.J.M. Jaunpur is set aside. The applicant is directed to move fresh application befgore the C.J.M. Jaunpur for seeking exemption of his personal attendance in the court below, which the C.J.M. is directed to allow thereby exempting the applicant of his personal attendance in the aforesaid complaint case No. 3700 of 1990. However, the applicant is directed to present himself before the court at the time of recording of his statement Under Section 313, Cr. P.C. and thus, the application is finally disposed of.

Same Court & Year Allahabad · 1990 Same Parties Nafees Haider vs State of U.P. Same Subject Criminal Same Judge S.I. Jafri, J. Acts & Sections Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1974 - Sections 313 and 482

Criminal