The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Raghuvansh Dewanchand Bhasin v. State of Maharashtra and Anr
Case Details
Cited in this judgment
Crl.O.P.No.20347 of 2025IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED : 21.07.2025CORAMTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.VELMURUGANCrl.O.P.No. 20347 of 2025K.Sanjida Begum ... PetitionerVs.1. The Commissioner of Police, Vepery, Chennai.2. The Inspector of Police, Maduravoyal Police Station, Law & Order, Chennai-600 095.3. Sehikh Abdul Khader4. Nassar ... Respondents Prayer: Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 528 BNSS, 2023, to direct the 1st and 2nd respondents to execute the Non Bailable Warrant, which was passed by the I-Additional Family Court, Chennai on 03.01.2025. For Petitioner : Mr.S.Natarajan1/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.20347 of 2025 For Respondents : Dr.C.E.Pratap Government Advocate (Crl.Side) for R1 and R2O R D E RThe Criminal Original Petition is filed seeking a direction to the 1st and 2nd respondents to execute the Non Bailable Warrant, dated 03.01.2025 issued by the I Additional Family Court, Chennai.2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for respondents 1 and 2 and perused the materials available on record.3. Since no adverse order is passed as against respondents 3 and 4, notice to those respondents is hereby dispensed with.4. According to the petitioner, the marriage between the petitioner and the third respondent herein was solemnised in the year 2012 and out of their wedlock one male child was born. Due to difference of opinion, they got separated and the petitioner/wife filed a maintenance case in M.C.No.246 of 2018 before the I Additional Principal Judge, Chennai. The learned I Additional Principal Judge, Chennai, by order dated 2/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.20347 of 202508.11.2022 allowed the petition and directed the third respondent/husband to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- per month to the petitioner/wife and Rs.5,000/- per month to their minor child. Since the third respondent herein wantonly not obeying the directions of the Court below, on 03.01.2025, the Court below issued Non-Bailable Warrant against the third respondent herein and the same has not been executed by the second respondent-Police till date. Hence the present petition. 5. The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the respondents 1 and 2 submitted that, since the third respondent - husband had given a false address during the maintenance case before the 1st Additional Family Court, the second respondent-Police is not in a position to execute the Non-Bailable Warrant issued on 03.01.2025.6. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Raghuvansh Dewanchand Bhasin Vs. State of Maharashtra and Anr ((2012) 9 SCC 791) [Crl.A.No.1758 of 2011] had issued certain guidelines on issuance of Non-Bailable Warrant. The relevant portion of the judgment is extracted hereunder :-'' 28. However, before parting with the judgment, 3/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.20347 of 2025we feel that in order to prevent such a paradoxical situation, we are faced with in the instant case, and to check or obviate the possibility of misuse of an arrest warrant, in addition to the statutory and constitutional requirements to which reference has been made above, it would be appropriate to issue the following guidelines to be adopted in all cases where non-bailable warrants are issued by the courts: 28.1. All the High Court shall ensure that the subordinate courts use printed and machine numbered Form 2 for issuing warrant of arrest and each such form is duly accounted for; 28.2. Before authenticating, the court must ensure that complete particulars of the case are mentioned on the warrant; 28.3. The presiding Judge of the Court (or responsible officer specially authorised for the purpose in case of High Courts) issuing the warrant should put his full and legible signatures on the process, also ensuring that Court seal bearing complete particulars of the Court is prominently endorsed thereon; 28.4. The court must ensure that warrant is directed to a particular police officer (or authority) and, unless intended to be open-ended, it must be returnable whether executed or unexecuted, on or before the date specified therein; 28.5. Every court must maintain a register (in the format given below at p. 804), in which each warrant of arrest issued must be entered chronologically and the serial number of such entry reflected on the top right hand of the process; 28.6. No warrant of arrest shall be issued without being entered in the register mentioned above and the court concerned shall periodically check/monitor the same to confirm that every such process is always returned to the court with due report and placed on the record of the case concerned; 4/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.20347 of 202528.7. A register similar to the one in para 28.5 supra shall be maintained at the police station concerned. The Station House Officer of the police station concerned shall ensure that each warrant of arrest issued by the court, when received is duly entered in the said register and is formally entrusted to a responsible officer for execution; 28.8. Ordinarily, the courts should not give a long time for return or execution of warrants, as experience has shown that warrants are prone to misuse if they remain in control of executing agencies for long; 28.9. On the date fixed for the return of the warrant, the court must insist upon a compliance report on the action taken thereon by the Station House Officer of the police station concerned or the officer in charge of the agency concerned; 28.10. The report on such warrants must be clear, cogent and legible and duly forwarded by a superior police officer, so as to facilitate fixing of responsibility in case of misuse; 28.11. In the event of warrant for execution beyond jurisdiction of the court issuing it, procedure laid down in Sections 78 and 79 of the Code must be strictly and scrupulously followed; and 28.12. In the event of cancellation of the arrest warrant by the court, the order cancelling warrant shall be recorded in the case file and the register maintained. A copy thereof shall be sent to the authority concerned, requiring the process to be returned unexecuted forthwith. The date of receipt of the unexecuted warrant will be entered in the aforesaid registers. A copy of such order shall also be supplied to the accused. Format of the Register 5/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.20347 of 2025S.NoThe number printed on the form usedCase title and particularsName & Particulars of the person against whom warrant of arrest is issued (accused/witness)The Officer/Person to whom directedDate of judicial order directing Arrest Warrant to be issued Date of issue Date of Cancellation if anyDue date of return Report returned onThe action takes as reportedRemarks29. We expect and hope that all the High Courts will issue appropriate directions in this behalf to the subordinate courts, which shall endeavour to put into practise the aforesaid directions at the earliest, preferably within six months from today.''7. In compliance of the directions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, this Court vide letter in T & PSC.No.3393/2011, dated 02.11.2011 issued certain guidelines to all the subordinate Courts for strict compliance of the directions issued by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Crl.A.No.1758 of 2011. In the year 2018, this Court had noticed that, there are some deviations in adhering to the directions issued by this Court vide letter in T & PSC.No.3393/2011 dated 02.11.2011, by some judicial officers. Therefore, this Court vide R.O.C.No.72661-A/2018/F1, dated 02.11.2018, re-issued the circular for strict compliance of the directions issued by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Crl.A.No.1758 of 2011, by the Judicial Officers.6/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.20347 of 20258. In the instant case, the Non-Bailable Warrant, which was issued by the Court below on 03.01.2025 is still pending. 9. It is needless to state that the Police authority did not follow the guidelines issued by the Hon'ble Supreme Court followed by the circulars issued by this Court cited supra. It is the contention of the prosecution that the whereabout of the third respondent/accused remains non traceable and that the second respondent-Police is not in a position to execute the Non-Bailable Warrant dated 03.01.2025. If at all the second respondent-Police is not in a position to execute the warrant, they should have returned the warrant on or before the date specified therein along with a report to the trial Court setting out the reason for non-execution, which has not been done in the instant case. Therefore, the second respondent-Police is directed to return the Non Bailable Warrant dated 03.01.2025 along with the report to the trial Court as per the dictum of the Hon'ble Supreme Court followed by circulars of this Court. 10. In view of the foregoing discussions, no directions can be issued as sought for by the petitioner. Accordingly, the Criminal Original Petition is dismissed. However, in case the petitioner is able to find out 7/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.20347 of 2025the whereabouts of the accused, she is at liberty to inform the same before the second respondent-Police and the second respondent Police, in turn, shall take necessary steps to obtain fresh Non Bailable Warrant and secure the accused. 21.07.2025Index : Yes/NoNeutral Citation Case : Yes/NoSpeaking Order : Yes/NomsTo1. The I Additional Principal Judge, I Additional Family Court, Chennai.2. The Commissioner of Police, Vepery, Chennai.3.The Inspector of Police, Maduravoyal Police Statoin, Law & Order, Chennai-600 095.4. The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.8/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.20347 of 2025P.VELMURUGAN, JmsCrl.O.P.No.20347 of 202521.07.20259/9
Crl.O.P.No.20347 of 2025IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED : 21.07.2025CORAMTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.VELMURUGANCrl.O.P.No. 20347 of 2025K.Sanjida Begum ... PetitionerVs.1. The Commissioner of Police, Vepery, Chennai.2. The Inspector of Police, Maduravoyal Police Station, Law & Order, Chennai-600 095.3. Sehikh Abdul Khader4. Nassar ... Respondents Prayer: Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 528 BNSS, 2023, to direct the 1st and 2nd respondents to execute the Non Bailable Warrant, which was passed by the I-Additional Family Court, Chennai on 03.01.2025. For Petitioner : Mr.S.Natarajan1/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.20347 of 2025 For Respondents : Dr.C.E.Pratap Government Advocate (Crl.Side) for R1 and R2O R D E RThe Criminal Original Petition is filed seeking a direction to the 1st and 2nd respondents to execute the Non Bailable Warrant, dated 03.01.2025 issued by the I Additional Family Court, Chennai.2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for respondents 1 and 2 and perused the materials available on record.3. Since no adverse order is passed as against respondents 3 and 4, notice to those respondents is hereby dispensed with.4. According to the petitioner, the marriage between the petitioner and the third respondent herein was solemnised in the year 2012 and out of their wedlock one male child was born. Due to difference of opinion, they got separated and the petitioner/wife filed a maintenance case in M.C.No.246 of 2018 before the I Additional Principal Judge, Chennai. The learned I Additional Principal Judge, Chennai, by order dated 2/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.20347 of 202508.11.2022 allowed the petition and directed the third respondent/husband to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- per month to the petitioner/wife and Rs.5,000/- per month to their minor child. Since the third respondent herein wantonly not obeying the directions of the Court below, on 03.01.2025, the Court below issued Non-Bailable Warrant against the third respondent herein and the same has not been executed by the second respondent-Police till date. Hence the present petition. 5. The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the respondents 1 and 2 submitted that, since the third respondent - husband had given a false address during the maintenance case before the 1st Additional Family Court, the second respondent-Police is not in a position to execute the Non-Bailable Warrant issued on 03.01.2025.6. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Raghuvansh Dewanchand Bhasin Vs. State of Maharashtra and Anr ((2012) 9 SCC 791) [Crl.A.No.1758 of 2011] had issued certain guidelines on issuance of Non-Bailable Warrant. The relevant portion of the judgment is extracted hereunder :-'' 28. However, before parting with the judgment, 3/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.20347 of 2025we feel that in order to prevent such a paradoxical situation, we are faced with in the instant case, and to check or obviate the possibility of misuse of an arrest warrant, in addition to the statutory and constitutional requirements to which reference has been made above, it would be appropriate to issue the following guidelines to be adopted in all cases where non-bailable warrants are issued by the courts: 28.1. All the High Court shall ensure that the subordinate courts use printed and machine numbered Form 2 for issuing warrant of arrest and each such form is duly accounted for; 28.2. Before authenticating, the court must ensure that complete particulars of the case are mentioned on the warrant; 28.3. The presiding Judge of the Court (or responsible officer specially authorised for the purpose in case of High Courts) issuing the warrant should put his full and legible signatures on the process, also ensuring that Court seal bearing complete particulars of the Court is prominently endorsed thereon; 28.4. The court must ensure that warrant is directed to a particular police officer (or authority) and, unless intended to be open-ended, it must be returnable whether executed or unexecuted, on or before the date specified therein; 28.5. Every court must maintain a register (in the format given below at p. 804), in which each warrant of arrest issued must be entered chronologically and the serial number of such entry reflected on the top right hand of the process; 28.6. No warrant of arrest shall be issued without being entered in the register mentioned above and the court concerned shall periodically check/monitor the same to confirm that every such process is always returned to the court with due report and placed on the record of the case concerned; 4/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.20347 of 202528.7. A register similar to the one in para 28.5 supra shall be maintained at the police station concerned. The Station House Officer of the police station concerned shall ensure that each warrant of arrest issued by the court, when received is duly entered in the said register and is formally entrusted to a responsible officer for execution; 28.8. Ordinarily, the courts should not give a long time for return or execution of warrants, as experience has shown that warrants are prone to misuse if they remain in control of executing agencies for long; 28.9. On the date fixed for the return of the warrant, the court must insist upon a compliance report on the action taken thereon by the Station House Officer of the police station concerned or the officer in charge of the agency concerned; 28.10. The report on such warrants must be clear, cogent and legible and duly forwarded by a superior police officer, so as to facilitate fixing of responsibility in case of misuse; 28.11. In the event of warrant for execution beyond jurisdiction of the court issuing it, procedure laid down in Sections 78 and 79 of the Code must be strictly and scrupulously followed; and 28.12. In the event of cancellation of the arrest warrant by the court, the order cancelling warrant shall be recorded in the case file and the register maintained. A copy thereof shall be sent to the authority concerned, requiring the process to be returned unexecuted forthwith. The date of receipt of the unexecuted warrant will be entered in the aforesaid registers. A copy of such order shall also be supplied to the accused. Format of the Register 5/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.20347 of 2025S.NoThe number printed on the form usedCase title and particularsName & Particulars of the person against whom warrant of arrest is issued (accused/witness)The Officer/Person to whom directedDate of judicial order directing Arrest Warrant to be issued Date of issue Date of Cancellation if anyDue date of return Report returned onThe action takes as reportedRemarks29. We expect and hope that all the High Courts will issue appropriate directions in this behalf to the subordinate courts, which shall endeavour to put into practise the aforesaid directions at the earliest, preferably within six months from today.''7. In compliance of the directions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, this Court vide letter in T & PSC.No.3393/2011, dated 02.11.2011 issued certain guidelines to all the subordinate Courts for strict compliance of the directions issued by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Crl.A.No.1758 of 2011. In the year 2018, this Court had noticed that, there are some deviations in adhering to the directions issued by this Court vide letter in T & PSC.No.3393/2011 dated 02.11.2011, by some judicial officers. Therefore, this Court vide R.O.C.No.72661-A/2018/F1, dated 02.11.2018, re-issued the circular for strict compliance of the directions issued by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Crl.A.No.1758 of 2011, by the Judicial Officers.6/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.20347 of 20258. In the instant case, the Non-Bailable Warrant, which was issued by the Court below on 03.01.2025 is still pending. 9. It is needless to state that the Police authority did not follow the guidelines issued by the Hon'ble Supreme Court followed by the circulars issued by this Court cited supra. It is the contention of the prosecution that the whereabout of the third respondent/accused remains non traceable and that the second respondent-Police is not in a position to execute the Non-Bailable Warrant dated 03.01.2025. If at all the second respondent-Police is not in a position to execute the warrant, they should have returned the warrant on or before the date specified therein along with a report to the trial Court setting out the reason for non-execution, which has not been done in the instant case. Therefore, the second respondent-Police is directed to return the Non Bailable Warrant dated 03.01.2025 along with the report to the trial Court as per the dictum of the Hon'ble Supreme Court followed by circulars of this Court. 10. In view of the foregoing discussions, no directions can be issued as sought for by the petitioner. Accordingly, the Criminal Original Petition is dismissed. However, in case the petitioner is able to find out 7/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.20347 of 2025the whereabouts of the accused, she is at liberty to inform the same before the second respondent-Police and the second respondent Police, in turn, shall take necessary steps to obtain fresh Non Bailable Warrant and secure the accused. 21.07.2025Index : Yes/NoNeutral Citation Case : Yes/NoSpeaking Order : Yes/NomsTo1. The I Additional Principal Judge, I Additional Family Court, Chennai.2. The Commissioner of Police, Vepery, Chennai.3.The Inspector of Police, Maduravoyal Police Statoin, Law & Order, Chennai-600 095.4. The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.8/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.20347 of 2025P.VELMURUGAN, JmsCrl.O.P.No.20347 of 202521.07.20259/9