Skip to content
How to use Judgment tools
  1. Click Tools to open PDF, Print, Tag, Note, Favourite, and CiteSignal.
  2. Use Brief & Ask in the toolbar for the AI Brief and case chat.
  3. Jump to sections with the pills below the help bar.

N.K. Suri Vs. State and anr.

N.K. Suri vs State and anr.

Disposition Petition allowed Court Delhi Decided Jul 10, 2003
~1 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/696167

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

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

Citation
Court
Delhi High Court
Judge
Decided On
Case Number
Criminal Misc. Nos. 3621 and 3622 of 2003
Subject
Criminal
Disposition
Petition allowed

Case Summary

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

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 482--Quashing of order--Offences against the petitioner are punishable only by way of fine--NEW issued by the Magistrate on the report of the summons that the accused had left the said address--Such coercive steps should not have been resorted until and unless accused have ref...

Key legal issue
Criminal
Outcome / disposition
Petition allowed

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

N.K. Suri

Advocate H.P. Singh, Adv

Respondent

State and anr.

Advocate U.L. Watwani, Adv.

Legal References

Reported In
2003VAD(Delhi)631; 105(2003)DLT619; 2003(69)DRJ586

Excerpt

criminal procedure code, 1973 - section 482--quashing of order--offences against the petitioner are punishable only by way of fine--new issued by the magistrate on the report of the summons that the accused had left the said address--such coercive steps should not have been resorted until and unless accused have refused to accept the summons--at first instance bailable warrant should have been issued--impugned order is set aside--petition allowed. - orderj.d. kapoor, j.crl.m. 3622/2003:allowed subject to just exceptions.crl.m. 3621/2003 in crl.m.(m) 2718/2003 :1. in view of the fact that the offences against the petitioner are punishable only by way of fine, the operation of the impugned order shall remain stayed as the non-bailable warrants were issued by the learned magistrate on the report of the summons that the accused had left the said address.2. until and unless there was a report that the accused was avoiding service or have refused to accept the summons, such a coercive steps should not have been resorted. if at all there was a need to take such a coercive process, the court should at the first instance have issued bailable warrants as the nature of the offence is not only bailable but punishment is only with that of fine. in view of the patent illegality in the order, there is no need for giving any notice. the petition is allowed at the threshold. the impugned order is set aside. however, the petitioner shall appear before the court on the date fixed failing which the impugned order will come into operation. dusty.

Full Judgment

ORDER

J.D. Kapoor, J.

Crl.M. 3622/2003:

Allowed subject to just exceptions.

Crl.M. 3621/2003 in Crl.M.(M) 2718/2003 :

1. In view of the fact that the offences against the petitioner are punishable only by way of fine, the operation of the impugned order shall remain stayed as the non-bailable warrants were issued by the learned Magistrate on the report of the summons that the accused had left the said address.

2. Until and unless there was a report that the accused was avoiding service or have refused to accept the summons, such a coercive steps should not have been resorted. If at all there was a need to take such a coercive process, the Court should at the first instance have issued bailable warrants as the nature of the offence is not only bailable but punishment is only with that of fine. In view of the patent illegality in the order, there is no need for giving any notice. The petition is allowed at the threshold. The impugned order is set aside. However, the petitioner shall appear before the Court on the date fixed failing which the impugned order will come into operation. dusty.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial