The inherent jurisdiction of the court cannot supplant statutory remedies for recalling Non-Bailable Warrants, reaffirming trial courts' authority in such matters.

Headnote:The court examined the extraordinary nature of its jurisdiction under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, highlighting the necessity for the presence of an accused in criminal proceedings, while affirming its constitutional role in balancing societal order and individual rights. It ruled that recall of Non-Bailable Warrants must be addressed by trial courts, underscoring the procedural hierarchy and the inherent jurisdiction's limitations. The petitioner's appeal for warrant recall was deemed non-maintainable in light of established legal precedent, necessitating the filing of an appropriate application before the trial court for reconsideration.

Table of Content
1. inherent jurisdiction balances rights. (Para 1 , 2 , 3)

ORDER :

PROLOGUE

1. The criminal process is not merely a mechanism for securing convictions, but a constitutional instrument for balancing the competing imperatives of societal order, victim justice, and individual liberty. While the presence of an accused before the trial Court is indispensable for the orderly progress of criminal proceedings, coercive processes such as Non-Bailable Warrants are not intended to operate as punitive tools, divorced from the realities of human conduct and procedural contingencies.

2. Equally, the inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (corresponding to Section 482 CrPC) is extraordinary in nature and cannot be permitted to supplant or short- circuit the statutory remedies expressly provided before the trial Courts. An overzealous invocation of such jurisdiction in matters relating to recall of warrants would not only erode the authority of trial Courts but would also impede the expeditious disposal of criminal cases, thereby frustrating the mandate of Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

3. It is in the above constitutional and statutory backdrop that the present Criminal Original Petition, seeking a direction relating to recall of a Non-Bailable Warrant, falls for consideration.

GIST OF THE CASES & RELIEF SOUGHT

4. Gist of the Case:

A case in STC No.150 of 2017 has been registered against the petitioner for the offences under Sections 138 r/w 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.1, Fast Track Court, Madurai, wherein the petitioner was convicted and sentenced to undergo one year simple imprisonment and also to pay compensation of Rs.60,000/-, in default, to undergo further two months of simple imprisonment. As against the same, an appeal has been filed by the petitioner before the learned V Additional District Judge, Madurai.

5. Relief Sought:

To recall the warrant issued against the petitioner by setting aside warrant dated 30.04.2025, issued by the learned V Additional District Judge, Madurai in Crl.A. No. 102 of 2023.

6. Grounds urged by the petitioner:

The petitioner is not aware of the hearing dates in the aforesaid case. Only later, the petitioner came to know about the warrant issued against him.

Submissions:

7. The learned counsels for the petitioner relying upon the judgment of this Court in Crl.O.P. No. 6472 of 2025 dated 07.03.2025, Crl.O.P. No. 4514 of 2016 dated 02.03.2016 and similar orders, submitted that, this Court has appreciated similar cases and had allowed the same by directing the petitioner to appear before the learned trial Court and file a petition under section 70(2) of Cr.P.C,1973/ 72(2) of BNSS ,2023, to recall NBW already issued against him and on filing the same the trial court has further been directed to consider the same on its own merits in accordance with law on the same day, making it clear that the disposal of the case in that manner by this Court do not amount to consider the recall petition favourably. Citing the same, the learned counsel for the petitioner sought for a similar order seeking disposition of the case in a similar manner.

8. Per contra, the learned Government Advocate categorically contended that this Court cannot invoke section 482/528 Cr.P.C/ BNSS in warrant recall matters and insisted that the petitioner’s remedy lies with the trial Court and on rejection by the Trial Court, before revision jurisdiction either before the sessions Court or this Court. He further submitted that this matter is already settled by this Court by Hon’ble Justice Janarthanam, J. in P.A.Saleem and others vs State another, 1994 SCC OnLine Mad 860 and pointed out that the said case was not brought to the attention of this Court, during disposal of Crl.O.P. No. 6472 of 2025 dated 07.03.2025, Crl.O.P. No. 4514 of 2016 dated 02.03.2016 and similar orders, by this Court and pressed for dismissal of