Heard Ms v. Swetha

THE HON'BLE SRI IUSTICE NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA CRIMINAL PETITION No.5583 OF 2025 ORDER: This Criminal Petition is filed by the petitioners/accused Nos.1 and 2, under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), to quash the docket order dated 03.12.2024 n Crl.M.P. No.275 ot 2024 and docket order dated 18.03.2025 in Crl.M.P. No.26 of 2025 n S.T.C. N.I. No.1 of 2024 on the file of learned Principal Junior Civil Judge, Mancherial (for short 'trial Court') and consequently direct the trial Court to recall the NBWs (Non-Bailable Warrants) issued against the petitioners/accused Nos.1 and 2 on 17.03.2024 without insisting their presence.

2. Heard Ms. V. Swetha, learned counsel for the petitioners/ accused Nos.1 and 2, and Mr. Jithender'Rao Veeramalla, leamed Additional Public Prosecutor, appearing for the respondent No.1 - State.

3. The case of the petitioners/accused Nos.1 and 2 is that the complainant filed complaint under Section 200 Cr.P.C. which was registered as S.T.C. N.I. No.1 of 2024 for the offence under Section 2 \t=-\\ '-*1 \ 138 of the NelJctiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for shorl 'r\c()wherein surrunon-s wer,-. ordered to the petitioners/accused Nios.l and 2 and posted for their appearance on 05.02.2024. On 05.J:'..2)24, as the petitioners / arr:used Nos.1 and 2 were absent, the r tatter was adjoumed to ''113.2024. As the petitioners/acr:used Nos.1 and 2 were not I)re:;ent even on 11.03.2024, the trial Courl rssued NBWs against the,m,rnd adjourned the matter to22.04.2024. On22.04.2024, the pehtioners/ accused Nos.1 and 2, through their r:cr;msel, filed petition under Section 70(2) of the Cr.P.C., seeking re,:altof NBWs issued agamsl them and the same was numbered as C.r Nl.P. No.275 of 2024. I)espite filing the said petition, it was kept p,:nding till

03.1,2.2024 an,l during the said period, the trial Cour.t tTanted as many as fourteen (14) adjournments. Finally, on 03.71)-.'.102..4, the trial Court dismis sed the said petition on the ground that the petitioners /accused Nos.1 and 2 failed to submit medirral reports and no representation on their behalf. The petitioners/accused Nos.1 and 2 paid costs on 77.70.2024 and also filed a rlre mo which was ackno'arled ged by the complainant. Despite the seLm,:, the trial Court has clisrrissed the petition seeking recall of the l$l\a/s. 3

4. It is further stated that subsequently, the matter was adjoumed from 10.01.20'E to 21.01'.2025. On 21.01.2025, the petitioners/accused Nos.1 and 2 filed another petition under Section 72 of the BNSS seeking recall of NBWs which was numbered as Crl. M.P. No.26 of 2025. Alter several adjoumments, the above petition was dismissed on the ground that earlier petition which was filed seeking recall of NBWs was dismissed by order dated

03.12.2024. Subsequently, when the matter was posted on

29.04.2025, the trial Court directed the respondent No'1 to execute the NBWs issued against the petitioners/accused Nos'1 and 2 and submit report. The matter is posted for filing of report on

28.05.2025.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners/accused Nos'1 and 2 submitted that. the trial Court has erroneously passed the orders dated 03.12.2024 and.18.03.2025 with a delay of ten (10) months and three and a half QV) months resPectively, without considering the medical rePorts submitted by the petitioners/accused Nos'1 and 2 in which it was stated that they underwent treatment for Dengupyrexia, Duodenal Dij Erosirre Gastritis, Hypertensior; High : l.' i* i':r *L, d. te "3# 4 Glade fever and Hyperpyrexia with respiratory lr'rcl infection. Hence, the pr:sent petition is filed' Ttrisi C:urt, by order 'dated 14 05 2025' has is;stterl notice to 6. respondent \1o.2 and the learned counsel for the petitioners/ accused |Jos I and 2 was permitted to take out personal notice to respondent \Io.2. Learned counsel for the petitiont'rrs/ accused Nos.1 antl 2 f iled the memo of proof of service t'irJe U'S lR No'50763 of 2025. ltre petitioners/accused Nos'1 an<l 2 ;Ltso intirnated respondent NIo.2 through Whatsapp corresponden':e There is no appearance 'ln behalf of respondent No'2' Le arn ec1 counsel for the petitioners/ accuse'd l'tros 1 and 2 7 . vehemerrtly t:ontended that against the order of issu': c'f NBWs' the petitioners/ a ccused Nos l and 2 filed petition under Ser:tion 7O(2) ot the Cr.P.C. for recalling the same and the trial Ccurt' having kept the samr: p,:ndhg for sufficient period of time' disrnissed the same on 03.12.20'.24. Further, again on 18'03'2025' the trial Court dismisst:d the petition filed under Section 72 :tl l)rc BNSS on 27.01,.2025 o n the ground of dismissal of the earlier petition' 5

8. Learned counsel for the petitioners/accused Nos.1 and 2 submitted that the trial Court ought to have recalled the NBWs by giving opportunity to the petitioners/accused Nos.1 and 2 to contest the case as they were not present on the said date of hearing i.e. on 03.12.2024. The trial Court has dismissed the petition though there is no necessity for *re petitioners/accused Nos.1 and 2 to be present on the said date of hearing.

9. Learned counsel placed reliance on the order of this Court in Cr1.P.No.12120 of 2023 dated 20.12.2023 wherein the learned Judge, relying upon the decision of Madurai Bench of Madras High Court in R.Sundar v. The Sub Inspector of Police, Lalgudi Police Station, Lalgudi, Lalgudi Taluk, Trichy Districtl wherein it was held that the presence of accused need not be insisted ufon during the proceedings for recall of NBWs. Following the same, the learned judge has allowed the above Crt.P.No.1212O of 2023 and recalled the NBWs issued against the petitioner therein. It appears that the said order squarely applies to the facts of this case. 1 crl.n.c.1uo1 No.1105 of 2023 and Crl-M.P.(ME)'lfo.14'125 of 202i dated26.1o.2023 { L hii'9:: i:; $. i[LE. s"i 6

10. Havinl; considered the contentions of the learn,:d counsel for the petitioner;/accused Nos.1 and 2 and material on record, this Court is of the opinion that the trial Court ought to have :ecailed the NBWs issuecl against the petitioners/accused Nos.1 ;rn<l 2 without insisting ttrei' presence and by considering their medical reports.

11. In viev'of the above, this crirninal petition is ,rllor,yed setting aside the ,lock.et order dated 03.12.2024 in Crl.M.p. No.i,l75 of 2O24 and docket rn'cler datecl 18.03.2025 in Crl.M.p. No.lrr of 2025 n S.T.C. N.L No.1 of 2024 passed by the trial Court and (]onsequently, NBWs issuer[ against the petitioners/accused Ncs I and 2 on

05.02.204 ard 77.03.2024 are recalled. Ftrrt:her, the petitioners/a< c'used Nos.1 and 2 shall appear before the Lrial Court as and when lequired and the trial Court is at liberty :o proceed with the mattrl in accordance with law. As a se c1uel, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed //TRUE COPY// SD/. T',TIRUMALA DEVI \DEPUTY REGISTRAR \ SECTION OFFICER To,

1. The IAddl Junior Civil Judge-cum-F A C Prl. Juh10r Civil JurJge, Mancherial, [V;rncherial District, Telangana

2. The Statior House Officer, Ramakrishnapur Police Station Mancherial District, Te,langana.

3. One CC to SFi.l SWETHA V, Advocate [OPUC] 4. Two CCs b the Public Prosecutor, State of Telangana, High C)ourt Buildings, at Hyderabad 'OUT)

5. Two CD Copie s :.iI;., .-: li*& , ,x&i,# ,,,,]i+l*il*,- HIGH COURT DATED:21 10512025 ORDER CRLP.No.6583 of 2025 .''- ,.:: i,. l ,t l) ja Sr '(. j, 29 IIIAY flE {r a-. : .. 'r..ri-,i:_.' ' - -1.._ .i:r::_-: i.J 'i. CRIMINAL PETITION IS ALLOWED I 4