JUDGMENT

K. Lakshman, J. - The present Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short 'Cr.P.C.'), to quash the docket order dated 20.08.2020 in C.C. No.3381 of 2020 passed by the learned V Additional Metropolitan Magistrate - cum - V Additional Junior Civil Judge, Cyberabad at L.B.Nagar by recalling the Nonbailable Warrant (NBW) issued against the petitioner.

2. The petitioner is sole accused in the said C.C.No.3381 of 2020. The offence alleged against him is under Section 420 of IPC.

3. Heard Mr. S. Surender Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner - accused and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the respondent - State, and perused the entire material available on record.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the trial Court, at the first instance, cannot issue NBW against the petitioner and it has to issue summons to the petitioner to appear in C.C. No.3381 of 2020. Instead of doing so, the trial Court has issued NBW at the first instance which is abuse of process of law. He would further submit that the petitioner is unaware of pendency of the above said crime and also the C.C. He would further submit that in complaint cases, at the first instance, the Court should direct serving of the summons along with copy of complaint, and if the accused seems to be avoiding the summons, the Court, in the second instance, should issue bailable warrant. In the third instance, when the Court is fully satisfied that the accused is avoiding the courts proceedings intentionally, the process of issuance of NBW should be resorted to. Personal liberty is paramount and by considering the same, the trial Court ought not to have issued the NBW against the petitioner.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner has also placed reliance on the principle laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Inder Mohan Goswami v. State of Uttaranchal, (2007) 12 SCC 1 .

6. With the said contentions, the learned counsel for the petitioner sought to quash the docket order dated 20.08.2020 in C.C. No.3381 of 2020.

7. On the other hand, the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, on instructions, would submit that the petitioner avoided to appear before the Investigating Officer and also failed to cooperate with the Investigating Officer. Therefore, the Investigating Officer, after completion of investigation, filed charge sheet for the offence under Section 420 of IPC. The same was taken on file vide C.C. No.3381 of 2020 by the trial Court. Since the petitioner is absconding from the beginning, on the note put up by the office, the trial Court has issued NBW on 19.10.2020. The petitioner instead of approaching the trial Court by filing an application under Section 70 (2) of Cr.P.C. for recall of warrant, filed the present petition. The judgment relied upon by the petitioner is of no use since the petitioner did not obtain bail from the trial Court either at the crime stage or at later stage. Thus, the police have left with no option except to file charge sheet by showing him as absconding. With the said contentions, he sought to dismiss the present petition.

8. De facto complainant has lodged a complaint dated 22.05.2019 against the petitioner herein alleging that the petitioner has voluntarily cheated him. Basing on the said complaint, the Station House Officer, Balapur Police station, Rachakonda Commissionerate, registered a case in Crime No.134 of 2018 against the petitioner for the offence under Section 420 of IPC. After completion of investigation, the police have filed charge sheet and the same was taken on file vide C.C.No.3381 of 2020. In the charge sheet, it is mentioned by the police that during the course of investigation, LWs.1 to 5 are owners of open plots. The details of plots including plot number, its extent and document numbers are specifically mentioned in the charge sheet. LW.1, de facto complainant - Kokkula Mahanand, has purchased two open plots bearin