Continued Non-Appearance Despite Repetitive Orders Imposing Cost: Allahabad HC Refuses To Quash Warrant Against 68-Year-Old Woman Who Did Not Appear To Record 313 CrPC Statement

The applicant was a 68-year-old woman who had stated that she was suffering from multiple health issues and had undergone a surgical operation of Retina “sometime in the year 2020”, which was otherwise not even mentioned in the affidavit.

A bench of Justice Subhash Vidyarthi while holding that the present case did not warrant the exercise of inherent power of the Court in favour of the applicant, observed, “Continued non-appearance of the applicant in spite of repetitive orders imposing costs against the applicant, due to reason that the applicant has undergone eye surgery on undisclosed date in the year 2020, does not appear to be justified”.

The bench further refused to accept the reliance placed on the Supreme Court’s judgment in Keya Mukherjee v. Magma Leasing Limited & Ors 2008 (8) SCC 447 where it had held that the requirements under Section 313 of the Code can be relaxed for the accused, if he/she satisfies the court that due to physical incapacity or some such other hardship, they are unable to reach the court venue.

“In the present case, no such circumstance has been pleaded by the applicant, which may satisfy the Court that she is unable to reach the venue of the Court for any justifiable reason and, therefore, the aforesaid judgment does not help the applicant in the present case”, the bench further noted in the order.

Advocate Abul Fazal Jaffrey appeared for the applicant and Advocate Anurag Kumar Singh appeared for the opposite party.

Through the application, a 68-year-old woman- applicant had sought to quash the Non-Bailable Warrant issued by CBI court for not appearing for recording her statement under Section 313 CrPC in a criminal case for offences under Section 120-B, 420, 468 & 471 IPC & under Section 13(2) read with section 13(1) Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

The matter relates to the year 2007 and it is included in the matter regarding which this Court has made an action plan for expeditious disposal but trial could not proceed because of the repetitive non-appearance of the applicant, therefore, applicant's application for exemption from appearance was rejected and a non bailable warrant was issued against her.

It was contended on behalf of the applicant that Section 313 CrPC was meant to protect the rights of the accused persons and as per subsection 5 of the Section, in spite of issuance of non bailable warrant the Court should have permitted the applicant to file written statement for her defence.

The CBI, however, opposing the application submitted that keeping in view the conduct of the applicant no relief should be granted to the applicant.

The bench, considering the facts recorded by the trial Court in the orders, also noted that it indicated that she was not cooperating with expeditious disposal of the trial, although the FIR in question was lodged in the year 2007 and the case was registered in the court in the year 2009, the case is quite old and it is included amongst the cases regarding which this Court has prepared an action plan for expeditious disposal.

“Learned counsel for the applicant has prayed that the applicant may be granted permission to submit written statement of her defence as provided under Section 313(5) Cr.P.C. However, no such request has been made by the applicant either before the trial court or in the application field before this Court, therefore, keeping in view the conduct of the applicant, this Court finds no reason to accede with the aforesaid prayers”, the order further read.

Cause Title: Bandana Guha v. State of U.P. Thru. Central Bureau Of Investig. Anti Corrup. Lko. [Neutral Citation: 2023:AHC-LKO:76664]