The High Court quashed a docket order issuing non-bailable warrants against accused in a bailable offence, relying on Supreme Court precedents, and directed appearance on a future date.
The docket order dated 17.04.2023 is set aside. Petitioners directed to appear before the trial court on 01.08.2024.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
a32s4l
IN HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
THURSDAY,THE TWENTIETH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE G.ANUPAMA CHAKRAVARTHY
CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 6454 OF 2023
Between:
2 M. Nageshwara Rao, S/o. Abbudas, Age. 41 years, Occ. Service, R/o.H.No.3-14, Teegala Banjara Village, Konijeda Mandal, Khammam Districi - 507165. ...PETIT|oNERS/ACCUSED 1&3
AND
Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Courl may be pleased to quash the Docket Order dated 17 -04-2023 passed in C_C. No. 1016 ol 2O17 On the fie of I Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, at Nampally, Hyderabad.
l.A. NO: 1OF 2023
Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to stay all further proceedings pursuant to the Docket Order dated 1704-2023 passed in C.C. No. 1016 of 2017 On the fie of I Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, at Nampally, Hyderabad including arrest of petitioners/accused 1 and 3, pending disposal of the above criminal petition.
This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri P.PRASANTH ,Advocate for the Petitioner and the SRI S. GANEHS Assistant Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent No.1 and None appeared for the Respondent No. 2.
The Court made the following: ORDER
.)
GAC, J ( r'l Ir.No r-),15+ ol 2023
HON'BLE S.MT. JUSTICE G. ANUPAMA CHI.I{.zu.VARTHY
C RIMINIAL PETITION No.6454 OF 2O2:l
ORDER
'I'hi:; I riminal Perition is liled under Sectiorr,1132 of Clode of C-'rimin r l l)rr :t:dure (for short 'Cr.P.C.') by thc pet tt,tners/accused Nos.1 er rrcL 3 se ekir-rg to set aside t]-re tloc ket order rl:,i tcd l7 0. .2O123 in C.C.No.1Ol6 of 2O 7 p:rs;cd bv the I Aclditio n irl(l ri:f Mctropolitan Magistrate at ItlamptLll r, llyderabad.
I
4
CAC, J Crl.P. No.6454 of 2023
It is further alleged that they obstructed the free flow ol trafhc, entry and exit of visitors and employees of TS Secretariat, thereby disobeyed the orders of Government of Telangana. Basing on the same, respondent No.2 registered a case in FIR No.26O of 2OI7 on the file of the Station House Ofhcer, Saifabad police Station, Hyderabad.
[rarned counsel for the petitioners contended that the ! police, after conducting investigation, hled charge sheet and the same is numbered as C.C.No. 1016 ol 2077 on the file of I Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Nampally, Hyderabad. It is further contended that the petitioners received summons from the trial Court and the case was posted to 17 .04.2023 for appearance of the accused. But due to personal urgency, the petitioners were absent on ttre said date. Thereafter, the trial Court has issued NBWs against the petitioners in a mechanical manner. It is also contended that in a bailable offence, the trial Court ought to have issued only bailable warrants and NonBailable Warrants issued against the petitioners herein are illegal
CiAC, J ('rl I'].No 6454 <:l 2023
)
ard c.r-rtt',t ,' 'lheret,.rre , pral,ed to set ar;icie ttr:, d:ckcl ordcr da Lcd - 7.t)1 2023.
i) Deuen..lrq. Kumar Tiwrt u. The Stqte of Mad.hga Pradeshl, u ltr:re in thc High Court ol Macih...a prirclesl (Jabalpur Benr:h) ha:.; l,:1C its follou.s:
1t). In the r.ase in hand_, leometr trta,l (.ourt has ls.srirr,:r tl e nort-bailoble u)orrants on th: uenr tirsl ciatet oJ' lilut I oJ- the cl.targe .sheet. Which is ,r-7r,insl lhe: tnentle e gruen by the Hon'bte Apex Ccurt in t.forzsaicl crr.se lt u. s, leamed tial Court ought to ltc u., is suecl su/rlnr(r ts at the uerg fi.rst instan(,e. If ctJ,er re&)wt of tllc: reD()t I , r'r summo/l.s ancl boilable u)arrcnts, C(,urt is o_lthe ti: tt' thctt accused is deliberatel.,l autnt.,ing the .sLrn/,?r) .s, the Cottrt mag issue bailable uarrL,,.t ancl iJborlcttttt 1.')arranl /ir.rs also not git,en clesired re :.ult thert if Co,tr, t,; fultg satisfied that the accu;ed. i:, :ttto|ding the t o,.r' .proceedings intentionollg, ihe prc,cess of issrrrrrr: ) of the non bailable u)arrant shculcl bz ;esortecl to.
) ' . In uiew o.f the oforesalrj d jscr., sslo,,r c, nd_ uell seitle,ti 1-.'ositiort oJ lau.,, impugned orcle.r dated 1 1 01.:t .t23 rlirect irtg issuonce of the trest tuotront agctinst,lte applicc tt at uery fi.rst instonce fot.:.ect,.ing his ct;-t1. ,a rance rs sel aside. Leanted. trictl (,out-t is direct,:cl fc l-ssue su/nrnolls insteatl of c.rzst trL tr..ant J-or the aL,p( arattce of tlte oppll6ont/ accused beforz the tiat Cottrt ct' ,'ir'-st instance.,,
1,lANU i MI',/O.l(l( /. o'2,3
6
".,.rr" uo.o "?t8ii
ii) Inder Mohan Goswami u, Stdte oJ Uttaranchal2, wherein
the Full Bench of Hon'ble Supreme court has held as folrows:
.49. l"he issu r.nuorues,"r.i;,";;;-ff :;,"J"":T0,,;:JIX,.^:::T:; impisonment means depriuation of tlie""^o"'r' on"*u, nsht of an ind.iuiduat finr.1or., ,k";;";': *ue to be elremelA careful before issuing nonAoitrti. lnon ". 4,9' . Just as libertg is precious for an indiuiduar so is the interest of the society in maintaining raw and order. Both are extremelg important for the surviual of a ciuilized societg. Sometimes i, tn blg.riir,"r.", Pubtic and the State it b.ecomes "A".tii.,ti'i^oZr" "1,n ^ curtait freedom of an .indiuidual 1r, " Liiii. period, only th.en the non_bailabte urananis- sh."io'iZ"r."r"o. WTten non_bailable warrants should be issued. Non-bailable tDarrdnt should. be i"";;;'-;. bring a person to court when be ,.toutd. uthen:be untikets ,. n"::T#;:",I::::#:: #:-.tr:;
c the police authorities are unable to find the person lo serue him tuith a summon; or o il rs considered that the person could harm someone if not placed. into custod.A immed.tatety. 50. As far as possibte, if the court ii "i ,iJ'.pir*, ,l:t: ""^:".n uilt sufJice in getting rn .oi,"rrJ,r* "f .tne accllsed in the court, the sumln.on o, ii- iorort ?".yi:ttshould be prefened. The uLarantJ either bailable or non-bailable should neuer be ir"r""i" *rtnout proper scruting of facts and. complete application oy ra mind, m iftc due to at ions u the hic h extremetg e n su, serious "on".'ql"if,"| ona clurt tl.u s t u e ry carefurs'.:;::;:n:L? iffi:^f; Complatnt or FIR has not been fi.ted with on- obtiqu" motiue.
'tt/'Nu lsclzges lzooz
_-p,-'
1
GAC, J Cr .P No 6154 ot 2023
I I I l I l ;
5I . lrt conplairLt case.s, at the first i rstan:r, the cottrl slL(tLtl I clirect scruing of the surnmon.s rzlo rr, wtth the 'oplt a.,' I,he co,nplaint. If the accusecl :;can to be :Lue,ul,t!l tLte sutrt nons, the coutt, in th. ser,crtd ir,startce .;hr-irl 1 is.sue boiLttble Luorranl. ln tL,e thit'tl in:;tartce, ,Dhi.n t.1e courl is iullg satisfied that th1? rrccrised ls duaicL'ul the court's proceeding i ien,l.ittalhl. the lrro:'€rrs orf issunrrce of t.lrc non-bailabl,: utarrc,nt sLtould oe ."c: ofted to. ll:rsonal liberty is parcmount, therefore, 1uc c( u'ion couris ctt t.he first and sc cottcl D stcnce to refrct; lront issuirrg non bailable u)arrc nts.
:;2. Tne potuer being discretionarA r,tust L e exercised jttdrci, u.;l1t tutth extreme care and ctLution The court :;hou !,, properlq balance both personal iltert,l an.d socrr-l;rl interest before issuing Loarrat ts.'l,te,re :annot Lte urt ' .;troight-lLtcket fonnula Jbr issutnce ).l w;rronts but ct-; t qenentl n e, un-less on acti.Lsecl i:, clrurged t.t'itlt ttrc commi.ssion of an offence oJ a l.te rrous cnnre c.r.ttrl Lt;.s fe,ared tlt.at he is likely to tarnlter or d.sioA th.e e'uic.,'ttt:r' or is iikelg to euade the prctces:, o,' lau, i.sstrrU ce ' o.f non brulable uarrants sltot,ld brz rtuctic].ed. 5.1. .rlr,e Courl .should try to maint aii t pr(4)(_ - bdlance L'etrt)e 'n irrdtuidttctl libertg ond the irLterest ol the publtc and tt' e State uth).le issuing non-baiLctbl, warr.'nt. :4. )tL consideration of the totality 6_f .litct:; and arcurr,,;t.1nces oJ' this case, the impugn,,d jt,c,q,ner.I and orcler , f '.fuz Hiqh Octurt connot be sustained '
iii) Sun,lgro Chemical Industries u. M.p,Mo,.hendrans,
s'hcreirL tlLr: l{ g}r Coun_ ol Madras (MadhurrLi Be r r:lr) tras held as follou,s:
7.'lhe lc'rtrnecl JtLdge hos arso it,t[.t i,t the de<'rsl:'2. as cited suprl, that:
I N{/\NLj/'l N /21 il/2010
8
GAC, J Crl. P.No.6454 of 2023
Non-bailable warrant issued uithout a preceding bailable warront tohere the offence is bailable is not in accord_once utith the scheme of the Criminal Procedure Code and" hence illegal. Therefore, u_thile exercising the pouer conferred under Section 87, Cr.p.C. and issuing a u)aftant, in o case of boilable offence, th.e Magistrate shall altuag s issue at the fi.rst instance a bailable u)arrant (including the endorsement prouided under Section 71, Cr. p.C). If the person does not appear before the Court euen after exeantion of bailable wanant, then, and onlA then the Magistrate may issue a nonbailable u.tarrant. Therefore, in all cases under Section 138 of the Negottable instru.ments Act, though it is possible or there is no legal infirmitg for the Magistrate fo issue a nonbailable u.tantant for the reasons to be recorded in witing, get, consideing the bailable nature of tLrc offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instnlments Act the Magistrote sholl alutays Issue"bailable uarront" at tLrc Jirst instance. For the aboue reasons there appears no reason or no circumstances uarranting the issue of nonbailable uaffant in this case."
9
GAC, J r'r I l). No 6454 rl1' 2023
\ i
I I
.{i1 L:,,: i,trove st:ltccl citations clearl.r, a1tp15, o thc lacts and ( lrLrllm,<,tanl, s of the pfascnt case .
(r. L)n pr: rrsal of thc docket order dat,:d 1i.( 4.i,023. it is cvrdr:nL thirL hl ;tolicc liled rcport stating thrrt the s tntmons were scrvcd on tlt, ;.,ctitioncr / accused Nos. I & 3 and a.c<:.rsc,l No.4. As therc u'as r -el)resentation on the said dtrte. t.tr:v r",cre called al)sent anc li I Jy's werc issued to them.
7 As p-'r' tJ.e procedurc laid down uncler Cr.i).C rn a bailable ollcnce, rr i:; f,,r the Cc,urt to issue bailable r,.arrer rt :rl tite first jrrstancc anc nspite r>f rcceiving the bailable u.a-rants, il the irt cused itr-r, :r'.,otding to appcar beforc thc Cor-rr t rrt r i,ntionally, llrcn. ncrr-ltir :rltle v,,arr:rnts nccd be issued tc the zLr:r:trscd.
8 As sr:,-: }om the docket order procceriings, l o s,uch steps hiLve i;ct,n r, r: I l:v the tri:rl Court.,I.frereli)r(., tirs ( ou:t is ,tf thc <;ir.rsrdcrcd vi u thal lhc orclcr dated I 7 .O4.2023 is liablc to be set ru s iclc.
() In vit:r'., o I the above, thc docket ordcr darcd .7 .(,4 .2023 in C.C.No. r O1(r :rf 20lT passed by thc I Ad(lrt jorral Chief MCtropo.itarr !lagistrate at Nampally, Hycleraba<i is lrerebv set irsidc. l:'ur:iL.r, [llc petilione rs/accuscd Nos.1 arrc ,: ar (] directed to ilpnear [rc,li lr' ti're rrial Court orr O 1.0g.2O2! .
T
IO
I
CAC, J'.. Crl.P.No.6454 of 2023(
11 Accordingly, the Criminal petition is disposed of.
Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.
One Fair Copy to the Hon,bte Smt. Justice G. ANUPAMA CHAKRAVARTHY (For Her Lordship kind perusal)
nssrsrairTJiSAY'IXA
T4
//rRUE coPy//
(--1lt
sEcrloN oFFlcER
Dt- .w---N
HIGH COURT
DATED:20r07/20 :13
ORDER
chlP.No.oasa o'zoz3
3;|; ";i>
.:
t
o() 'l I 1,. l[8 :, ,
,/
'/
:i:,11".'.:ty
Ctl.P is rlisp,rsec,- 1
: L/')1: )
f"^, ).-
Y)
I
-) )
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the trial court erred in issuing non-bailable warrants instead of bailable warrants in a bailable offence at the first instance.
Whether the issuer of non-bailable warrants without prior summons was contrary to the scheme of the Criminal Procedure Code.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Deepak Kumar Tiwari v. The State of Madhya PradeshFollowed¶41
Deepak Kumar Tiwari v. The State of Madhya Pradesh
Umed Mohan Goswami v. State of UttaranchalFollowed¶48
Umed Mohan Goswami v. State of Uttaranchal
Shivagro Chemical Industries v. M.P. MohandasFollowed¶60
Shivagro Chemical Industries v. M.P. Mohandas
2 provisions across 1 enactments
Naresh Mandapuram
M. Nageshwara Rao
The State of Telangana
G. Anupama Chakravarthy
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
