MP High Court Restores Dismissed Petition but Refuses to Revive Arrest Warrant Stay
The Jabalpur Bench restored a dismissed criminal miscellaneous case but declined to continue the stay on an arrest warrant, citing repeated non-appearance by the petitioner's counsel.
On 24 June 2026, Justice Pramod Kumar Agrawal of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur allowed a restoration application in Abhishek Banerjee v. Akash Vijayvargia, reviving M.Cr.C. No. 51319/2025 after it had been dismissed for want of prosecution on 17 June 2026. The court accepted the averments in the affidavit-supported application and restored the petition to its original number for adjudication on merits. However, the court made clear that the stay on the execution of an arrest warrant — originally granted on 12 November 2025 by the same bench in the earlier proceedings — would not be continued. The order was directed to be communicated to the concerned JMFC and Special Judge, MP/MLA Court, Bhopal, for necessary action.
The Petition and the Arrest Warrant
M.Cr.C. No. 51319/2025 had been filed before the High Court and, on 12 November 2025, the court stayed the execution of an arrest warrant issued in Case No. SC PPM/2/2024 by the JMFC and Special Judge, MP/MLA, Bhopal. That stay was granted until the next date of hearing.
The matter was thereafter adjourned on multiple occasions — 8 December 2025, 19 January 2026, and 4 February 2026 — without the petitioner's counsel advancing arguments.
Repeated Warnings Ignored
On 8 May 2026, the matter was fixed for 16 June 2026 at 2:30 PM on the request of the petitioner's counsel. The court recorded a specific warning: if the petitioner did not argue on the next date, the matter would be decided on merits and interim relief would not be continued.
On 16 June 2026, adjournment was again sought. The court repeated the same warning about interim relief and fixed the matter for the very next day, 17 June 2026.
On 17 June 2026, no one appeared for the petitioner even during the pass-over round. The court accordingly dismissed M.Cr.C. No. 51319/2025 for want of prosecution and specifically vacated the stay order dated 12 November 2025.
Why the Court Restored the Petition but Withheld the Stay
The restoration application was supported by an affidavit, and the court accepted the prayer, restoring the petition to its original number. The court's reasoning, however, drew a clear line between restoring the case and reviving the interim protection.
The order sheet of M.Cr.C. No. 51319/2025 showed that the petitioner's counsel had been given several opportunities to argue. Despite the explicit warnings on 8 May 2026 and 16 June 2026 that interim relief would not survive further non-appearance, no one appeared on 17 June 2026. The court held that in view of these facts and circumstances, the stay on the arrest warrant issued in Case No. SC PPM/2/2024 would not be continued.
The effect is that while the petitioner may now argue the main petition on its merits, the arrest warrant issued by the JMFC and Special Judge, MP/MLA, Bhopal remains executable pending any fresh order.
Outcome
M.Cr.C. No. 28814 of 2026, the restoration application, was allowed. M.Cr.C. No. 51319/2025 was restored to its original number for adjudication on merits. The stay on execution of the arrest warrant in Case No. SC PPM/2/2024, which had been in force since 12 November 2025, was not revived. A copy of the order was directed to be placed on the record of M.Cr.C. No. 51319/2025 and sent to the concerned JMFC and Special Judge, MP/MLA, Bhopal.