Back
T. MADHAVI DEVI
Arige Venkataramaiah – Appellant
Versus
State of Telangana – Respondent
Key Points: - The court held that the presence of the accused is not necessary during proceedings for recall of NBW when represented by counsel (!) . - The court recalled the NBW issued on 05.10.2023 and quashed the Docket Order dated 05.12.2023 in Crl. M.P. No. 1114 of 2023 in C.C. No. 4637 of 2022 (!) . - The petition is allowed; pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, stand closed (!) (!) . - The petitioner had argued non-appearance due to lack of counsel communication and submitted a medical certificate; these were considered in allowing recall of NBW (!) (!) . - The decision relied on Madras High Court (R. Sundar) on the non-necessity of the accused's presence for recall proceedings (!) .
ORDER :
1. In this Criminal Petition, the petitioner is seeking quashing of the Docket Order dated 05.12.2023 in Crl. M.P. No. 1114 of 2023 in C.C. No. 4637 of 2022 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Special (Mobile) Court under PCR Act, Ranga Reddy-cum-IV Additional Metropolitan Magistrate-cum-IV Additional Junior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B. Nagar (hereinafter referred to as ‘the trial Court’)
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in C.C. No. 4637 of 2022, the petitioner/accused had engaged a counsel and when the matter came up for hearing on 06.09.2023, the trial Court has observed that the accused was called absent and there was no representation on behalf of the accused and therefore, the Court had issued an NBW (Non-Bailable Warrant) against the accused and posted the matter for hearing on 05.10.2023. It is stated that again on 05.10.2023, the accused was called absent and that no representation was made on his behalf and therefore, an NBW was issued against the accused. The contention of the petitioner/accused is that he was not aware of the dates of hearing as his counsel had not informed him about the same and on coming to know
The presence of an accused is not required for proceedings concerning the recall of a Non-Bailable Warrant if represented by counsel.
The court established that a trial court must consider medical documentation and cannot insist on the physical presence of accused in proceedings concerning recall of Non-Bailable Warrants.
NBW issued to secure presence, not punish; recall possible without accused attending court as precondition.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
