S. Vimala, J.

1. Liberty is the natural and inalienable right of every human being recognised and protected by Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Complaining that the personal liberty of the petitioner is infringed, except in accordance with the procedure established by law, this petition has been filed by the Inspector of Police, Nanguneri Circle, seeking to quash the order of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Peraiyur, issuing Non-Bailable Warrant against him dated 24.05.2016 [despite the filing of the application seeking to condone his absence].

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) for the first respondent. In view of the limited relief sought for by the petitioner, notice to the second respondent herein is dispensed with.

3. The second respondent herein, as the Manager of a bus company, seems to have filed a private complaint against the petitioner herein and the same has been registered under Sections 342 and 323 IPC and the case is pending in C.C. No. 560 of 2013.

4. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the private complaint was filed by the defacto complainant/second respondent as a counterblast to the earlier legal action taken by the petitioner herein in his official capacity while functioning as Sub Inspector of Police, at T. Kallupatti Police Station, Madurai District. It is stated that a case was registered by the petitioner against the second respondent herein in Crime No. 220 of 2003 in respect of the offences under Sections 75 of the Madras City Police Act and 7(1)(a) of the Criminal Law Amendment Act. It is alleged that as the second respondent herein was arrested and sent to judicial custody towards wrecking vengeance, this private complaint has been used as a tool to harass the petitioner.

5. The grievance of the second respondent herein is stated to be that his driver was not released on bail at the Police Station itself and the petitioner herein registered a case in Crime No. 220 of 2003 against the second respondent for the offences committed by him in front of the Police Station.

6. The petitioner is facing trial in C.C. No. 560 of 2013 for the offence under Sections 342 and 323 I.P.C. The case against the bus driver and the second respondent herein are also stated to be pending in the same Court.

7. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that because of the law and order problem in Nanguneri circle, the petitioner could not appear before the Court on 24.05.2016 and despite petition being filed under Section 317 Cr.P.C. the learned Magistrate has chosen to issue non-bailable warrant. He would further submit that the non- bailable warrant issued is arbitrary, illegal and against law and therefore, it should be set aside.

8. In order to appreciate this contention, it is necessary to look into the provision of Section 317 Cr.P.C. under which the petition has been filed by the petitioner herein:

"317. Provision for inquiries and trial being held in the absence of accused in certain cases.

(1) At any stage of an inquiry or trial under this Code, if the Judge or Magistrate is satisfied, for reasons to be recorded, that the personal attendance of the accused before the Court is not necessary in the interests of justice, or that the accused persistently disturbs the proceedings in Court, the Judge or Magistrate may, if the accused is represented by a pleader, dispense with his attendance and proceed with such inquiry or trial in his absence, and may, at any subsequent stage of the proceedings, direct the personal attendance of such accused.

(2) If the accused in any such case is not represented by a pleader, or if the Judge or Magistrate considers his personal attendance necessary, he may, if he thinks fit and for reasons to be recorded by him, either adjourn such inquiry or trial, or order that the case of such accused be taken up or tried separately."

9. If the Judge or Magistrate is satisfied that (1) the personal at