Gollapalli Narasimha Murthy v. State of Andhra Pradesh
Case brief
What is this about?
In a revision under S. 397/401 Cr.P.C., the High Courtrejected interference with an order issuing NBWs in an evasion case under S. 500 IPC, allowing a recall application to the Magistrate but directing disposal on the same day.
What the court decided
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE M. SATYANARAYANA MURTHY
Crl.R.C.No.2350 of 2017
ORDER:
This revision case is filed under Sections 397 and 401 of Cr.P.C questioning the propriety, legality and regularity of the order, dated 18.08.2017 in C.C.No.142 of 2016 passed by the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Kovvur.
The order passed by the Court below is as under:
“Dated 10.08.2017: Complainant and A1, A4 are present. A1, A3, A5,A6 absent. Petition filed. Allowed. Await summons on A2,A7. The complainant filed memo by stating that A2, A7 are intentionally avoiding to receive summons by managing. Perused the memo, Heard the complainant. Hence, issue NBW against A2, A7 on payment of process. Call on 24.08.2017.”
Now the contention in this revision is that the summons ordered to the petitioners were not served, but basing on the memo filed by the complainant that these petitioners are evading to receive summons, the Court below issued NBWs against A2 and A7 on payment of process and posted the matter to 24.08.2017. It is the contention of the petitioners that the complaint was filed before the Court below for the offence punishable under Section 500 of IPC for defamation and it is to be tried under summary procedure. In such a case, the Court below cannot issue NBWs against the petitioners directly.
The 2nd respondent admittedly filed a private complaint under Section 200 of Cr.P.C for the offence punishable under Section 500 of IPC. for defamation and issued process exercising power under Section 204 of Cr.P.C. initially. But the summons were not served on the petitioners/A2 and A7 in the said complaint. However, the complainant filed a memo informing the Court below that the petitioners/A2 and A7 are evading to receive summons. Thereafter, the Court below after satisfying itself and on perusing the memo satisfied that the petitioners are evading summons, issued NBWs.
Issues for consideration
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the Magistrate erred in issuing a Non-Bailable Warrant (NBW) against petitioners in a summons-case without prior service
Whether the retention of a private complaint for issuance of summons on satisfaction of evasion warrants issuing an NBW directly
Parties & counsel
- petitioner
Petitioners (A2, A7)
- respondent
Complainant
Coram
M. SATYANARAYANA MURTHY
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
- Court
- Telangana HC
- Decided on
- · August
- Registered
- Case no.
- CRLRC/2350/2017
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court