Gayaru Vishwanatham v. The State of Telangana & Ors.

Petition under Section 5287 R/Jry,72(2) OF BNSS 2023 praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to Recall/cancel the N.B.WS issued against the Petitioner/Accused in docket order on 26-8-2O25-and 10-4-2026 in STC Nl No. '156 ot 2025 on the file of ll Additional Junior Civil Judge cum Vl Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class MedchaFMalkajgiri district pending disposal of the Criminal Petition. Petition under Section 5287 R N, 72(2) OF BNSS 2023 praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to Stay of all and further proceedings, including execution of N.B.Ws issued against the Petitioner/Accused in docket order on 26-8-2025 and 10- 4-2026 in STC Nl No. 156 ot 2025 on the file of ll Additional Junior Civil Judge cum Vl Additional Judicial Magistrate of first Class Medchal-Malkajgiri district pending disposal of he Criminal Petition. _ This Petiticn coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of sri samala Ravendar, Advocate for the Petitioner and sri Jithender Rao veeramalla, learned Additionai Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent No.1 and none appeared for the Respondent I'1o.2 The Court made the following: ORDER 0 IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HONOURABLE SRT JUSTTCE J.SREENIVAS RAO ETITI N Datez 24.04.2026 Between: Gayaru Vishwanatham The State of Telangana and another AND Order: Petitioner ..Respondents This Criminal Petition has been filed aggrieved by the docket orders dated 26.08.2025 and LO.04.2O26 passed by the II Additional Junior Civil Judge-cum-Vl Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Medchal-Malkajgiri District, in STC NI No.156 of 2025, where under the trial Court issued NBW against the petitioner and appointed one Mr.K.Srinivas, as Advocate- Commissioner to execute the same

#2. Heard Mr.Samala Ravendar, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Mr.Jithendar Rao Veeramalla, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, appearing on behalf of respondent No.1. With their consent, this criminal petition is disposed at the stage of summons ..,)..

#3. Notice in respect of respondent No.2 is dispensed with, as the petitioner is not seeking any relief against him.

#4. Le:rned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is an accused in src NI.No.156 of 2g2s, for the offence under S,:ction 138 of the Negotiable lnstruments Act, lggl (for short 'the N.l. Act) and the petitioner has not received summons in the said case. on the other hand, the trial court issued NBw against l:he petitioner and he came to know about the issuance of NBw only in the second week of April, 2026 after appointing the Advocate:-Commissioner to execute the NBW.

#5. He, further submitted that in the absence of effective service of sumrnons, the trial court ought not to have issued NBw against the petil.ioner. Even after service of summons, in the event the petitioner failed to appear before the trial court, the trial Court ought tc, have issued NBw. on the other hand, the trial court straight away issued NBw on 26.o8.2o2s and the same is contrary to law.

#6. Hr: also submitted that when this court raised a query as to why the petitioner did not lile any application before the triat Court seeking recall the NBW, as per the provisions of section zo(2) of cr.P.c. /72(21 of the Bharatiya Nagarik suraksha Sanhita, 2o2g (for sho.t 'the BNSSJ, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted ! I i i I t I I I ::3:: f', that the trial Court is insisting the physical presence of the petitioner.

#7. He further submitted that the petitioner, who is aged about 60 years, is eking out his livelihood by doing agriculture and he is suffering with health problems. In view of the same, the petitioner may be permitted to file an application to recall the NBW issued against him, before the trial Court, and the trial Court may be directed to consider the same in the absence of the petitioner. In support of his contention, he relied upon the order dated 2A.12.2023 passed by this Court in Criminal petition No.l2l4O ot 2023, wherein it was held that the presence of the petitioner is not required to consider the application seeking to recall the NBW.

#8. Per contra, learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that the petitioner without availing the remedy available under law straight away approached this Court and liled the present criminal petition and the same is not maintainable under law.

#9. Having considered the rival submissions made by the respective parties and after perusal of the material available on record, it reveals that on 26.08.2025, the trial Court issued NBW against the petitioner and posted the matter to 25.09.2025, wherein it is specitically mentioned that the petitioner/accused is absent, no representation in spite of summons served. Learned -, :24:z counsel ibr the petitioner has not placed any contra evidence to show that the petitioner has not received the summons. [n view of the samt:, this court is not inclined to accept the submissions made by the learned counsel that the petitioner has not received summons from the trial Court.

#10. It :.s also relevant to mention that as per the provisions of Section 7'0(21 of cr.P.c .172(21 of the BNSS, the petitioner is entitled to lile a:r application before the same court for recalling NBW issued al3ainst the petitioner on 26.o8.2o2s. without availing the said rem:dy, the petitioner had approached this court and liled the present c:riminal petition.

#11. Tai<ing into consideration of the peculiar facts and circumstances, the age and occupation of the petitioner and also the prin:iple laid down by the Madurai Bench of Madras High court in the case of R.sundar vs. The sub Inspector of police, Lalgudi police station, Lalgudi, Latgudi Taluk, Trichy Districtl, wherein it was observed that the presence of the accused need not be insist.ed upon during the proceedings for recarl of NBW, the petitioner is granted liberty to file an application invoking the provisions of Section 70(21 of cr.P.c./section T2(21 of the BNSS, seeking ::ecall of NBW issued against him on 26.o8.2o2s. on such application, the trial court is directed to consider the same and tcrl.R.c.(Mt))No. Il05 of 2o23 andcrt.M.p.(MDlNo. 14125 of 2o23dt.26.to.2o23 ..{.. pass appropriate orders in accordance with law within a period of two (2) days from the date of filing of such application even in the absence of the petitioner.

#12. With the above direction, the criminal petition is disposed of. Miscellaneous applications, pending if any, shall stand closed SD'. K.V.O. NARSI BABU ASSISTANT //TRUE COPY" To,

#1. The ll Additional Junior Civil Judge cum Vl Judicial Magistrate of SECTION OFFICER First Class Medchal-Malkajgiri district.

#2. The Station House Officer, Uppal Police Station, 3. Two CCs to the Public Prosecutor, High Court

#4. bne CC to Sri Samala Ravendar, Advocate [OPUC] 5. Two CD Copies of Telangana at HYderabad GNK w u HIGH COURT DATEDT 2410412026 ORDER CRLP.NIo.6363 of 2026 DISPOSiING THE CRIMINAL PETITION ,,pQ(A (> s+"