High Court · 2025

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue an order, direction or a writ in the nature of a certiorari, mandamus or any other appropriate writ, directing the 1't Respondent to permit the Petitioner to appear through video-conference not to insist on her personal appearance before itself, to recalt the BW/NBWs issued by her against the Petitioner for personal appearance and for sureties, to direct the 2nd Respondent not to cause the arrest of the Petitioner without prior Ieave of this Hon'ble court, report compliance before this Hon'ble court, and pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case. lt is further prayed that in order to prevent a miscarriage of iustice, all the cases that pending against the petitioner before the 1st Respondent be clubbed together. lA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased For all lhe reasons mentioned in the accompanying affidavit which is not being repeated here for the sake of brevity, it is prayed that inorder to prevent a miscarriage of justice, all the cases that pend against the Petitioner before the lst Respondent maybe clubbed together. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI BOLLAM KRUPANANDAM/ M/S EUNICE CHAWNGTHU Counsel for the Respondent No.2: GP FOR HOME The Court made the following: ORDER THE HON'BLE SRI IUSTICE P.SAM KOSHY AND THE HON'BLE SRIIUSTICE NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA WRITPETITION N0.731.40F 202s ORDER: (per Hon'ble Sri Juslice Narsing Rao Nantliknda) This writ petition is fited under Articte 226 of constitution of rndia seeking the fottowing retief : "to issue an order direction or a writ in the noture of o certiorori mondomus or ony other appropriote writ directing the lstrespondent to permit the petitioner to oppear through video conference ond not to insist on her personal appeorance before leorned I Additionol Chief Metropoliton hlagistrote reco| for of the BWl NBws issued aEainst the petitioner for personol oppeoronce ond for sureties ond to direct the 2nd respondent not to couse the arrest of the petitioner without prior leove of this Court, report compliance before this Court and pass such other order or orders os this Court may deem fit and proper in the facts ond circumstances of the cose ond further prayed thot in order to prevent o miscarrioge of justice all the coses thot pending against the petitioner before the I't Respondent be clubbed together.,,

2. Mrs. Eunice Chawngthu, Sri B.Krupanandam, Advocate petitioner, though she has engaged to represent her case, but as a pafty-in-person, she hersetf made submissions virtuatty. 3' The brief facts of the case are that the learned r Additionat chief Metropotitan Magistrate has issued two baitabte and three non-baitabte warrants against petitioner for non appearance and for non-production of sureties under Section 448, 427 and 506 IPC and 533, 506 and 509 IpC. She contended that att 2 PSKI & NA\ WP No.7314 of 202i\.. the cases registered are frivotous in nature and none of which are heinous in nature or of any national importance.

4. On 28.07.2025 (AN), the Tetangana Police Department represented by the respondent No.2 and the Narsingi Potice Station, sent as many as 10 to 20 potice personnel to her residence at Alkapuri Township to specificalty execute the Non Baitabte Warrant issued by the respondent No.'l , in respect of the matters pertaining to the year 20'18. She further contended that on 28.02.2025, the petitioner immediatety filed a petition under Section 70(2) of Code of Criminal Procedure before respondent No.1 to recat[ the Baitabte and Non-Baitabte Warrants issued against petitioner, but the respondent No.1 refused' to receive the same by stating that the time to fite fresh petitions was over. Even though her counsel waited in Court titl 5 P.M. She further contended that again on 01 .03.2025 petitioner's counsel at '10.30 A.M. fited another apptication under Section 70(2) of Code of Crimina[ Procedure, vide USR Nos.192125, 193/25 and 194/75. However, the respondent No.1, untawfutly rejected two recatl petitions without even assigning SR numbers and thereafter the respondent No.1 rejected the other three recatt petitions and insisting her personal appearance to recatl the Non Bailabte Warrants.

5. The main contention of the petitioner/ party-in - person is that she is unabte to attend the Court physicatty before the learned I Additional Chief Metropotitan Magistrate, Nampalty, as she is facing a serious threat to her life and she being a lonety [ady from the famity and she is only seeking retief in this writ petition to permit her to appear through video-conference before respondent No.1 and / direct the respondent No.1 not to insist her persona[ appearance and recat[ the PSKJ & NNRI WP No./314 ol2025 Baitabte and Non-Baitabte Warrants pending against her.

6. Heard. Perused the material on record. 7- During the course of the arguments, the petitioner has ptaced list of cases which are pending against her before the respondent No.1, which reads as under: 1. CC No.9o55r2020, FrR No.r03t17 lited under section 353,506 and 509 of tpc. 2. CC No.578118 under Section 353 lpc. 3. CC No.696l 18 under Section 341 ,427. 4. cc No-l31012019 under section 427, 44g ond 506 of rpc, settred before Lok-adolat on 06.03.2025 5 cc No.1501120r9 under Section 34r ond 506 of tpC, settted before Lok-adarot on 21.02.2025.

8. lt is pertinent to mention here that during the course of hearing the petitioner though mentioned five pending cases, but she restricted the prayer onty to the extent of CC No.9055 of 2020.

9. The main grievance of the petitioner before this court is onty timited to the aspect of permitting her to appear before the respondent No.1 through video conference and not to insist her on physical personal appearance white recatting the Baitabte and Non-Baitabte warrants issued against her by the respondent No.1 and atso in respect of furnishing of sureties.

10. The smatl point that arise for consideration before this court is very limited and the petitioner (party-in person) expressed her inabitity to appear before the respondent No.1. Though she has contended that she approached the \./ 4 Psr a N\. wP No.7i14 ol 2O2S'. respondent No.l and fited the apptications under Section 70(2) of Code of Criminat Procedure to recatl Baitabte and Non Baitabte Warrants, but the respondent No.,l neither choose to accept/ receive the same nor pass any orders, butinsistingforphysicatappearanceofthepetitioner.Themaincontentionis that she is a lonety tady and that she is facing a serious threat to her [ife, tiberty, freedom and reputation and if the said retief is not granted the petitioner witt suffer hardshiP. ll.DuringandafterthepandemicofCoVlD-lg,thejudicialworkintheentire countrywasattendedandtheappearancesweremadebyutil.izingthevideo conferencing facitity and hearing of the cases and appearances of the persons were atso made through v.irtuatty in many of the cases considering the pandemic situation. ln view of the revotution changes in the judiciaL system, by inctuding the lnformation Technotogy and the imptementation of various software appticat.ion in the judiciat system for the purpose of easy dispensation of justice without causing any hardship to any of the stakehotders at [arge'

17. ln view of the above discussed circumstances, this Bench feels that the prayer sought by the petitioner appears to be genuine onty to the extent of appearanceofthepetitionerthroughvideoconferenceforthepurposeof reca[ting the non-baitabte warrant in three cases, more particutarty in cc No.9055/2020, FIR No. l03 117 filed under sections 353, 506 and 509 0f IPC and the relief sought by the petitioner can be permitted considering the circumstances stated and the interest of justice. \ -/ 5 PSN & NNR) WP No /314 oJ 2O25

13. Accordingty, this writ petition is altowed and the petit'ioner is permitted to appear before the respondent No.1 through virtual mode by fiting a fresh pet.ition under section 70(2) of code of criminat procedure before the 1st respondent to recatl the non-baitabte warrants within a period of 10 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Respondent No.1 shatt not insist her for personal appearance for recatting of the non-baitable warrant. Respondent No.1 is directed-. to consider the said petition on the same day and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law.

14. The respondent No.1 is further directed to make necessary arrangements to that effect to facilitate the petitioner to appear virtuatty and the.retevant link shatl be made avaitable to the petitioner and if respondent No.1 intending to altow the said petitions, respondent No.1 shatt pass orders by fottowing due procedure contemptated under law.

15. As far as furnishing of sureties white recatting the warrants are concerned, we leave it open to the respondent No.'r to consider alt the facts and circumstance of the case and thereafter pass appropriate order in accordance with law at the discretion of respondent No.1 and the court may atso consider acceptance of a personal surety/bond.

16. lt is further made ctear that this facitity is onty timited to the extent of cc.No.9055 of 2020 in recatting the non-baitabte warrant. ln future, it is for respondent No. 1 to take decision to atlow the petitioner in person or virtuatty. It is atso made ctear to the petitioner that she shatl appear before the learned Magistrate on at[ days as and when directed to appear physicatty. Where law requires to do so.

17. A[[ miscettaneous apptications, if any pending, shatt atso stand closed. No order as to costs. SD/. MOHD. ISMAIL NT REGISTRAR AS //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, TJ BM

1. The I ACMM, Nampally Criminal Courts, C/o 0/o The tt/etropolitan Sessions Judge, Nampally criminal courts, Nampally, Hyderabad -- 500004 Telangana State

2. The SHO Saifabad, Police station, C/o 0/o The DGP, DGP Office, Lakdikapul' Hyderabad - 500004 Telangana State

3. Ohe CC to Sri Bollam Krup-anandam, Advocate [OPUC] 4. One CC to M/s Eunice Chawngthu, Party in Person[OPUC] 5. Two CC to The GP for Home, High Court for the State of Telangana, at HyderabadlOUTl 6. Two CD Copies w HIGH COURT DATED:2810312025 ORDER WP.No.7314 of 2025 \HE sr., / J 2 n ,lutl 2925 i'. tl * o -- ./ *..,/?' oeHT4 ';--:a-'-- ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS .\.rd'a -&',