SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Telangana) 268

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA, J.
M/s Oakland Infra Private Limited - Appellant
Versus
The State of Telangana - Respondent
Criminal Petition No.6583 Of 2025
Decided On : 21-05-2025

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : SWETHA V
For the Respondent: PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

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.

Headnote:(A) Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 - Section 528; Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 - Section 138 - Non-Bailable Warrants issued against accused for failure to appear - Trial Court erred in dismissing petitions to recall warrants without considering medical reports of the accused - Earlier decisions indicated that presence is not mandatory for such proceedings. (Paras 1, 3, 10)

(B) Procedural rights of accused - The court emphasized the importance of allowing accused to contest cases without unnecessary insistence on their physical presence during proceedings. (Paras 9, 10)

Facts of the case:
The petitioners were accused in a criminal case under the Negotiable Instruments Act, facing non-bailable warrants due to non-appearance. The trial court dismissed their petitions for recall, overlooking submitted medical reports on their illness.

Findings of Court:
The High Court found that the trial court acted unjustly by not recalling the NBWs, recognizing the petitioners' medical conditions and allowing their representation without insisting on presence.

Issues: The core issues revolved around the validity of NBWs issued in light of the petitioners' medical conditions and the trial court's refusal to recall them.

Ratio Decidendi: The court concluded that the presence of accused is not required for hearings seeking recall of NBWs, affirming that medical documentation should have been considered seriously.

Result: Criminal petition allowed; Non-Bailable Warrants recalled.

Table of Content
1. filing of petitions to quash nbws (Para 1 , 3 , 4 , 5)
2. arguments regarding trial court's dismissal (Para 2 , 7 , 8)
3. service of notice to respondent (Para 6)
4. precedent concerning presence in nbw cases (Para 9)
5. court's decision to allow the petition (Para 10 , 11)

ORDER :

1. This Criminal Petition is filed by the petitioners/accused Nos.1 and 2, under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 ( BNSS ), to quash the docket order dated 03.12.2024 in Crl.M.P. No.275 of 2024 and docket order dated 18.03.2025 in Crl.M.P. No.26 of 2025 in S.T.C. N.I. No.1 of 2024 on the file of learned Principal Junior Civil Judge, Mancherial (for short ‘trial Court’) and consequently direct the trial Court to recall the NBWs (Non-Bailable Warrants) issued against the petitioners/accused Nos.1 and 2 on 11.03.2024 without insisting their presence.

2. Heard Ms. V. Swetha, learned counsel for the petitioners/accused Nos.1 and 2, and Mr. Jithender Rao Veeramalla, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, appearing for the respondent No.1-State.

3. The case of the petitioners/accused Nos.1 and 2 is that the complainant filed complaint under Section 200 Cr.P.C. which was registered as S.T.C. N.I. No.1 of 2024 for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short ‘Act’) wherein summons were ordered to the petitioners/accused Nos.1 and 2 and posted for their appearance on 05.02.2024. On 05.02.2024, as the petitioners/accused Nos.1 and 2 were absent, the matter was adjourned to 11.03.2024. As the petitioners/accused Nos.1 and 2 were not present even on 11.03.2024, the trial Court issued NBWs against them and adjourned the matter to 22.04.2024. On 22.04.2024, the petitioners/accused Nos.1 and 2, through their counsel, filed petition under Section 70(2) of the Cr.P.C., seeking recall of NBWs issued against them and the same was numbered as Crl.M.P. No.275 of 2024. Despite filing the said petition, it was kept pending till 03.12.2024 and during the said period, the trial Court granted as many as fourteen (14) adjournments. Finally, on 03.12.2024, the trial Court dismissed the said petition on the ground that the petitioners/accused Nos.1 and 2 failed to submit medical reports and no representation on their behalf. The petitioners/accused Nos.1 and 2 paid costs on 17.10.2024 and also filed a memo which was acknowledged by the complainant. Despite the same, the trial Court has dismissed the petition seeking recall of the NBWs.

4. It is further stated that subsequently, the matter was adjourned from 10.01.2025 to 21.01.2025. On 21.01.2025, the petitioners/accused Nos.1 and 2 filed another petition under Section 72 of the BNSS seeking recall of NBWs which was numbered as Crl. M.P. No.26 of 2025. After several adjournments, the above petition was dismissed on the ground that earlier petition which was filed seeking recall of NBWs was dismissed by order dated 03.12.2024. Subsequently, when the matter was posted on 29.04.2025, the trial Court directed the respondent No.1 to execute the NBWs issued against the petitioners/accused Nos.1 and 2 and submit report. The matter is posted for filing of report on 28.05.2025.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners/accused Nos.1 and 2 submitted that the trial Court has erroneously passed the orders dated 03.12.2024 and 18.03.2025 with a delay of ten (10) months and three and a half (3½) months respectively, without considering the medical reports submitted by the petitioners/accused Nos.1 and 2 in which it was stated that they underwent treatment for Dengupyrexia, Duodenal D1 Erosive Gastritis, Hypertension, High Glade fever and Hyperpyrexia with respiratory tract infection. Hence, the present petition is filed.

6. This Court, by order dated 14.05.2025, has issued notice to respondent No.2 and the learned counsel for the petitioners/ accused Nos.1 and 2 was permitted to take out personal notice to respondent No.2. Learned counsel for the petitioners/accused vide N

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

AI

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top