The High Court · 2025

Petition under Section 528 of B.N.S.S. praying that in the circumstanceso stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to quash the docket order dated 12-11-2025 passed in C.C.No.994712024 on the file of the XV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad to the extent of "issue .fresh NBW against A3" in the interest of justice. l.A. NO: 2 OF 2025 Petition under Section 528 of B.N.S.S. praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to suspend the docket order dated 12-11-2025 passed in C.C.No.994712024 on the file of the XV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad to the extent of "issue fresh NBW against A3"" pending disposal of the above Crl.P. in the interest of Justice. l This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri P NAGENDRA REDDY ,Advocate for the Petitioner and Sri V.Jithender Rao,the Additional Public Prosecutor (TG) on behalf of the Respondent No.1 and None appeared for the respondent no.2. The Court made the following: ORDER 3 HIGH TE F TELAN AT HYDERABAD THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE J.SREENIVAS RAO CRIMINAL PETITION No.16560 of 2025 Date: 15.12.2025 Between Thammisetty Vaasu AND ...pettttoner The State of Telangana, Through Station House Officer, Rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of Telangana, At Hyderabad and another. ..respondents OR ER This Criminal Petition has been filed aggrieved by the orders dated 12.1.1.2025 passed in c.c.No.9947 of 2024 on the file of xv Additional chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad , in issuing fresh Non-Bailable warrant against accused No.3.

2. Heard Mr. L. Anand, learned counsel representing Mr. P. Nagendra Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Jithendar Rao Veeramalla, learned Additional public Prosecutor for respondent No.l. Notice in respect of respondent 4 No.Zlde facto complainant is dispensed with on the ground that the petitioner has questioned the NBWs issued by the learned Magistrate.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is an accused No.3 in C.C.No .9947 of 2024 on the file of XV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad, registered for the offence punishable under sections 4984, 406, 420, 504, 506, 323,509 0f IPC and Sections 3 & 4 0f DP Act. The learned Magistrate ought to have issued summons before issuing NBW and even after issuance of summons, if the accused failed to appear before the Court, the learned Magistrate is having power to issue Non-Bailable Wanant (for short 'NBW') against the accused. But, the learned Magistrate without following the said procedure, while taking cognizance for the above said offences, issued NBW against the accused straight away, without issuing summons solely basing upon the final l report and the request made by the Investigating Officer and the same is contrary to the law. 4. He further submitted that initially the petitioner approached this Court and filed Criminal Petition No.12188 of 5 2025, aggrieved by the docket order dated 30.09.2024 passed in C.C.No.9947 of 2024 by the learned Magistrate issuing NBW against the accused No.3. This Court allowed the said petition on 18.09.2025, by setting aside the above docket order and directed the Trial Court to issue summons to accused No.3 and proceed with the matter strictly in accordance with law. Inspite of the same, the learned Magistrate issued NBW afresh on the accused No.3 on 12.11.2025, which is contrary to law.

5. In support of his submissions, learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the Judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Coum in sutender Kumar Antil vs. central Bureau of Investigation and Another.t

6. Per contro, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that the petitioner has not filed a copy of order dated

18.09.2025 passed by this Court in CrlP.No.12l88 of 2025 a before the Trial Court. Due to the same, inadvertently, the learned Magistrate has passed the said orders.

7. Having considered the rival submissions made by the respective parties and after perusal of the material on record, it t 1zozz1 to scc 5l 6 reveals that the petitioner initially has approached this Court and filed CrlP.No.l2l88 of 2025 seeking quashment of the docket order dated 30.09.2024 in C.C.No.9947 of 2024 passed by the Trial Court, thereafter this Court allowed the said petition by setting aside the above docket order and further directed the Trial Court to issue summons to accused No.3 and proceed with the matter strictly in accordance with law. Despite aforesaid direction of this Court, the learned Magistrate issued NBW afresh against accused No.3 on 12.11.2025 in C.C.No.9947 of 2024 on the file of the learned XV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad as the Police have mentioned that the petitioner did not cooperate with the investigation.

8. It is a trite law that after taking cognizance of an offence, the Magistrate must ordinarily issue summons to the accused. , Only if the accused fails to appear even after service of summons can the Court take coercive steps, such as issuing a Non-Bailable Warrant, but issuing an NBW at the initial stage itself, without first issuing summons or without recording any reasons showing \ 7 that the accused is deliberately avoiding the court or not cooperating with the investigation, is not permissible in law. 9- The Hon'ble Supreme court has, in a consistent line of decisions, unequivocally held that rnere allegations of non- cooperation by the Investigating officer cannot, by themselves, justify the issuance of a non-bailable warrant at the stage of taking cognizance. [n satender Kumar Antit (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme court mandated adherence to the graded process contemplated under the Code of Criminal procedure, namely issuance of summons in the first instance, followed by bailable warrants, only thereafter, NBWs can be issued and the learned Magistrate has to record cogent reasons. Mechanical issuance of NBWs without applicarion of judicial mind and without exhausting lesser coercive measures is impermissible in law. The same principle was reiterated in vikas v. state of Rajasthan2, a wherein it was held that at the stage of cognizance, a Magistrate cannot issue NBWs merely on the Investigating officer's allegation of non-cooperation and is duty-bound to follow the graded procedure. rn siddharth v. stote of uttar pradesh3, the ' lzot+1 3 scc 32 I '(2022) r SCC 676 8 r\ Hon'ble Supreme Court further clarified that allegations contained in the charge sheet, including alleged non-cooperation, do not automatically warrant coercive measures such as NBWs. Similarty, in Lokshay Jaiswul v. State (NCT of Delhi)4, the High Court of Delhi deprecated the mechanical issuance of NBWs solely on the request of the Investigating Officer. In Aman Preet Singh v. Central Bureau of Investigations, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the mere filing of a charge sheet or taking of cognizance cannot be a ground for issuance of NBWs without independent judicial reasoning. Finally, in Raghuvansh Dewanchand Bhasin v. State of Maharashtra6, the Court authoritatively laid down that after cognizance, the normal rule is to secure the presence of the accused by summons or, at the highest, by bailable warrants, and that NBWs being an exceptional measure can be issued only upon recording a independent judicial satisfaction that lesser processes would be ineffective, such as in cases of deliberate evasion or likelihood of absconding, allegations or opinions of the Investigating Officer, including allegations of non-cooperation, cannot substitute o zozq ScC Online Del 2583 t lzozzl 13 scc 764 u 1zotz19 scc 79r 9 judicial application of mind, and mechanical issuance of NBWs was held to be impermissible in law and violative of Article 2l of the Constitution.

10. It is already stated supra that, in the case on hand, the leamed Magistrate, without issuing summons straightaway issued a non-bailable warrant against the petitioner without recording any reasons or satisfaction, solely on the basis of the { t final report and the request made by the lnvestigating Officer. Such action is contrary to the settled legal position laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court as mentioned supra is contrary to law.

11. For the foregoing reasons and in light ofthe principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court supra, this Coun is of the considered view that the impugned order dated 12.11.2025 passed by the Trial Court issuing a non-bailable warrant against the petitioner/accused No.3 at the stage of taking cognizance, without first issuing summons, is contrary to law and the same is liable to be set aside, accordingly set aside.

12. In the result, the criminal petition is allowed and the leamed Magistrate is directed to issue summons to 10 petitioner/accused No.3 and proceed with the matter in accordance with law. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. /TRUE COPY// SD/- M. OSMAN ALI BAIG ASSISTANT REGISTRAR SECTION OFFICER City. one Fair copy to the Honourable Sri Justice J.Sreenivas Rao To, (For his Lordships kind perusal) 1' The XV Additional Chief tvletrop_olitan Magistrate At Nampally, Hyderabad. 2' The Station House officer, WPS South West Zone potice Station, Hyderabad 3. 11 LR Copies 4. The Under Secretary, Union of lndia, Ministry of Law, Justice and company 5' The Secretary, Advocates Association Library, High Court for the State of - Telangana, High Court Buildings at Hyderabad 6. One CC to sRr p. NAGENoRA nrodv, Rdvocate [opUC] 7 ' Two CCs to the Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana, 8. Two CD Copies Hyderabad [OUT] Affairs, New Delhi E AR /ABK / I I !_ I I I i i HIGH COURT DATED:15 112t2025 ORDER CRLP.No.16SG0 ot 2025 ohlE s $' 5 \ ALLOWING THE CRL.P. b 1\