- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Omwati v. State Of U.P And Another
Factual and Procedural Background
The appellant, a complainant, filed Criminal Appeal No. 356 of 1981 in the Allahabad High Court challenging the acquittal of the accused in Sessions Trial No. 25 of 1979 under Sections 395/397 of the Indian Penal Code. More than two decades later, on 9 October 2002, a Single Judge of the High Court—finding neither the appellant nor her counsel present—issued bailable warrants for her arrest. Recognising an apparent irregularity, the appellant petitioned the Supreme Court, which on 25 April 2003 directed the High Court Registry to explain the reasons for issuing such warrants.
While that inquiry was pending, another Single Judge of the High Court, on 15 July 2003, again found the appellant absent and escalated the matter by directing the issuance of non-bailable warrants. The appellant was consequently taken into custody. An affidavit filed by the Registrar General of the High Court confirmed that the proceedings concerned an appeal against an acquittal, not a prosecution of the appellant. The matter then returned to the Supreme Court for resolution.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the High Court’s orders dated 9 October 2002 (bailable warrants) and 15 July 2003 (non-bailable warrants) against a complainant-appellant in an appeal against acquittal were legally sustainable.
- Whether, and to what extent, a complainant can be subjected to coercive processes—such as arrest—merely for non-appearance in her own appeal.
Arguments of the Parties
The opinion does not contain a detailed account of the parties' legal arguments.
Table of Precedents Cited
No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The Supreme Court characterised the impugned High Court orders as the result of “total non-application of mind.” Key points of its analysis include:
- The appellant was not an accused but a complainant who had exercised her statutory right to appeal an acquittal; consequently, treating her as an absconding accused was fundamentally misconceived.
- Alternative procedural options—such as dismissing the appeal for non-prosecution or issuing a notice—were available; arrest was neither necessary nor lawful.
- The High Court’s second order (15 July 2003) ignored both the Supreme Court’s intervening directive and the nature of the proceedings, thereby compounding the error.
- State counsel present during the High Court hearing should have drawn the court’s attention to these shortcomings; the failure to do so highlighted systemic lapses.
- Because the warrants lacked legal foundation, any custody suffered by the appellant was unjustified. The Court emphasised that issuing warrants—especially non-bailable ones—requires heightened judicial care.
Holding and Implications
APPEAL ALLOWED. The Supreme Court quashed the High Court’s orders dated 9 October 2002 and 15 July 2003, discharged all sureties and personal bonds, and directed Respondent 1 to pay the appellant ₹10,000 as token compensation within six weeks. A copy of the judgment was ordered to be forwarded to the Chief Justice of the High Court.
Implications: The decision underscores that complainants in appeals against acquittal cannot be subjected to coercive measures intended for accused persons. Although no new precedent was explicitly established, the ruling serves as a cautionary reminder to lower courts to apply careful judicial scrutiny before issuing warrants, thereby safeguarding personal liberty and preventing procedural misuse.
Order
1. Leave granted.
2. Sometimes one would come across strange orders passed, depicting very unhappy state of affairs. The case in hand is one of such cases. It appears that the appellant before us filed an appeal, Criminal Appeal No. 356 of 1981 in the High Court against the acquittal of the respondents who were acquitted after their trial. As it is evident from the number assigned to that appeal, it may have been filed sometime in 1981. On 9-10-2002 an order was passed by the High Court which we quote below:
“Case called out in the revised list. Neither the appellant nor her counsel is present.
Issue bailable warrant against the appellant, in the event of her being arrested. She will be produced before the CJM, Aligarh, who will release her on bail on furnishing a personal bond with two sureties each in the like amount of Rs. 20,000 to the satisfaction of CJM, Aligarh.
The CJM, Aligarh will submit photocopies of the personal bond and security bond to this Court within four weeks.”
3. The above order seems to have been passed unmindful of the fact that the appellant was not an accused but a complainant who had preferred an appeal against acquittal. In case the appellant was not present, there may have been other options but certainly not for arrest of the complainant appellant who was complaining against the acquittal of some accused persons. The appellant approached this Court and on 25-4-2003 an order was passed to the following effect:
“The Registry to obtain information from the Registrar, Allahabad High Court, with regard to reasons for issuing bailable warrants against the petitioner.”
4. An affidavit was filed by the Registrar General of the High Court narrating therein that the appellant had filed an appeal against an order of acquittal passed in Sessions Trial No. 25 of 1979, acquitting the respondent-accused under Sections 395/397 IPC. The said appeal was admitted by the High Court on 5-2-1981. The affidavit was filed by the Registrar General on 26-9-2003 but in the meantime it appears that once again when the matter was listed in the High Court before another Bench of Single Judge, on 15-7-2003, surprisingly, despite the order passed by this Court requiring the Registry to indicate the reasons for issuing bailable warrants, an order was passed which is quoted below:
“None is present for the appellant though called twice. Shri P. Dikshit is present for the respondent.
Issue non-bailable warrant of arrest of appellant Omwati. The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Aligarh will execute the same and submit compliance report within two months. List thereafter.”
5. It appears, perhaps nothing may have been available on the file nor was the attention of the Court drawn by the Registry or anyone, to the order passed by this Court nor the Court itself noticed the fact that it was a matter pertaining to an appeal against acquittal. Thus, an order was passed for issue of non-bailable warrants for the arrest of the appellant. A compliance report was also sought.
6. From the order passed on 15-7-2003, it appears that a counsel was also present on behalf of the respondent. In an additional affidavit filed by the appellant, it is indicated that the counsel was a State Counsel. We feel that the State Counsel should have pointed it out to the Court about the nature of the matter and the propriety of issuing bailable or non-bailable warrants against the complainant appellant. The unfortunate sequel of such unmindful orders has been that the appellant was taken into custody and had to remain in jail for some time, maybe for a few days, but without any justification whatsoever. She suffered in view of the total non-application of mind at the stage of passing of the two impugned orders. Some degree of care is supposed to be taken before passing an order of issue of warrants, bailable or non-bailable. Such orders cannot stand.
7. In view of the position as indicated above, we allow the appeal and quash the orders dated 9-10-2002, for issue of bailable warrants against the appellant and the order dated 15-7-2003 for issue of non-bailable warrant passed by the High Court. It is informed that the appellant was released on bail on furnishing personal bonds and sureties. The sureties and the personal bonds stand discharged. As a token of compensation, we direct Respondent 1 to pay a sum of Rs. 10,000 to the appellant within a period of six weeks.
8. A copy of this order may also be sent to the Chief Justice of the High Court.
Alert