u/darksoul001121

Just wanted to share a classic example of trial court arbitrariness and why you always, always need to secure documentary evidence of everything that happens in the courtroom.

The Setup:

In a standard IPC 406 matter, the Magistrate directly issued a Non-Bailable Warrant (NBW) against my client. No summons, no bailable warrant first—just straight to NBW, completely ignoring the Supreme Court guidelines (like Inder Mohan Goswami).

The Hearing:

We immediately moved a recall application. My client was physically present with me in court. After arguments, the judge got incredibly hostile and gave me an ultimatum: "Either 'Not Press' this application right now, or your client is going straight to jail."

Knowing the mood of the court, I strategically decided to not press the application to save my client from immediate custody. However, before stepping back, I made absolutely sure my client signed the daily order sheet to leave an undeniable, on-record proof of his physical presence in the court that day.

The Absurd Order:

Later, I checked the order sheet. The judge, clearly annoyed, went ahead and issued a proclamation under Section 82 CrPC (now Sec 84 BNSS) against my client.
The judge literally wrote on the order sheet: "The recall application was not pressed by the accused. NBW is pending. Let the accused be summoned through Sec 82."

The Catch:

Right next to that very paragraph declaring him an absconder who is evading the court's reach... is my client's physical signature and the date!
How can a court have "reason to believe" an accused is absconding or concealing himself when he is literally standing in front of the dais, moving applications, and signing the judge's own order sheet? The judge essentially used Section 82 as a punitive tool to punish us for the recall application, rather than its actual statutory purpose.

Just wanted to share a classic example of trial court arbitrariness and why you always, always need to secure documentary evidence of everything that happens in the courtroom.

The Setup:

In a standard IPC 406 matter, the Magistrate directly issued a Non-Bailable Warrant (NBW) against my client. No summons, no bailable warrant first—just straight to NBW, completely ignoring the Supreme Court guidelines (like Inder Mohan Goswami).

The Hearing:

We immediately moved a recall application. My client was physically present with me in court. After arguments, the judge got incredibly hostile and gave me an ultimatum: "Either 'Not Press' this application right now, or your client is going straight to jail."

Knowing the mood of the court, I strategically decided to not press the application to save my client from immediate custody. However, before stepping back, I made absolutely sure my client signed the daily order sheet to leave an undeniable, on-record proof of his physical presence in the court that day.

The Absurd Order:

Later, I checked the order sheet. The judge, clearly annoyed, went ahead and issued a proclamation under Section 82 CrPC (now Sec 84 BNSS) against my client.
The judge literally wrote on the order sheet: "The recall application was not pressed by the accused. NBW is pending. Let the accused be summoned through Sec 82."

The Catch:

Right next to that very paragraph declaring him an absconder who is evading the court's reach... is my client's physical signature and the date!
How can a court have "reason to believe" an accused is absconding or concealing himself when he is literally standing in front of the dais, moving applications, and signing the judge's own order sheet? The judge essentially used Section 82 as a punitive tool to punish us for the recall application, rather than its actual statutory purpose.

Had a wild experience in court today and wanted to share why you must always secure documentary evidence of your client's presence.

In a standard 406 matter, the Magistrate bypassed summons and directly issued an NBW. We appeared in court to move a recall application. The judge got hostile and gave an ultimatum: "Not press this application, or your client goes to jail right now."

To protect my client from immediate custody, I didn't press the application. However, I strategically made sure my client signed the daily order sheet before we stepped back, creating undeniable proof of his physical presence.
Later, I checked the order sheet. The annoyed judge had initiated a Section 82 CrPC (now Sec 84 BNSS) proclamation, literally writing: "Recall not pressed. NBW pending. Summon accused through Sec 82."

The best part? This declaration that my client is an "absconder" evading the court's reach is written right next to my client's physical signature and today's date!

A quick update to my previous post.

I served the legal notice on 1st July. Today (2nd July), I received a call from Burger King.

The representative apologized for the inconvenience and offered to resolve the matter amicably. They sent me the entire order again free of cost and also included a few extra items as a goodwill gesture.

I appreciate that they chose to address the issue promptly instead of ignoring it. My objective was never to get free food—it was to ensure that companies take consumer complaints seriously and provide what customers actually pay for.

This experience reinforced one thing for me: if you have a genuine grievance, proper documentation and a well-drafted legal notice can often resolve the issue without going to court.

Thanks to everyone who commented and shared their advice on my previous post.

I had a disappointing experience with Burger King recently.

I ordered a Double Patty Chicken Burger, but what was delivered was a Single Patty Chicken Burger. Before eating it, I checked the burger properly because it looked different from what I had ordered. I have the order invoice as well as photographs of the burger taken on the day of delivery.

I contacted Burger King’s customer support expecting a fair resolution, but unfortunately the issue has still not been resolved to my satisfaction.

As an advocate, I believe businesses should be held accountable for delivering what customers actually pay for. This isn’t just about the price difference—it’s about consumer rights and fair business practices.

Since the matter remains unresolved, I am now sending Burger King a legal notice, giving them an opportunity to resolve the dispute before I initiate proceedings under consumer law.