A Magistrate must issue summons before a Non-Bailable Warrant, and NBWs cannot be issued without judicial reasoning; mechanical issuance violates procedural law.

ORDER :

J. SREENIVAS RAO, J.

1. This Criminal Petition has been filed aggrieved by the orders dated 12.11.2025 passed in C.C.No.9947 of 2024 on the file of XV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad in issuing fresh Non-Bailable Warrant against accused No.3.

2. Heard Mr. L. Anand, learned counsel representing Mr. P. Nagendra Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Jithendar Rao Veeramalla, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent No.1. Notice in respect of respondent No.2/de facto complainant is dispensed with on the ground that the petitioner has questioned the NBWs issued by the learned Magistrate.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is an accused No.3 in C.C.No.9947 of 2024 on the file of XV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad, registered for the offence punishable under sections 498A, 406, 420, 504, 506, 323, 509 of IPC and Sections 3 & 4 of DP Act. The learned Magistrate ought to have issued summons before issuing NBW and even after issuance of summons, if the accused failed to appear before the Court, the learned Magistrate is having power to issue Non-Bailable Warrant (for short ‘NBW’) against the accused. But, the learned Magistrate without following the said procedure, while taking cognizance for the above said offences, issued NBW against the accused straight away, without issuing summons solely basing upon the final report and the request made by the Investigating Officer and the same is contrary to the law.

4. He further submitted that initially the petitioner approached this Court and filed Criminal Petition No.12188 of 2025, aggrieved by the docket order dated 30.09.2024 passed in C.C.No.9947 of 2024 by the learned Magistrate issuing NBW against the accused No.3. This Court allowed the said petition on 18.09.2025, by setting aside the above docket order and directed the Trial Court to issue summons to accused No.3 and proceed with the matter strictly in accordance with law. Inspite of the same, the learned Magistrate issued NBW afresh on the accused No.3 on 12.11.2025, which is contrary to law.

5. In support of his submissions, learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the Judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Satender Kumar Antil Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and Another . 2022) 10 SCC 51

6. Per contra, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that the petitioner has not filed a copy of order dated 18.09.2025 passed by this Court in CrlP.No.12188 of 2025 before the Trial Court. Due to the same, inadvertently, the learned Magistrate has passed the said orders.

7. Having considered the rival submissions made by the respective parties and after perusal of the material on record, it reveals that the petitioner initially has approached this Court and filed CrlP.No.12188 of 2025 seeking quashment of the docket order dated 30.09.2024 in C.C.No.9947 of 2024 passed by the Trial Court, thereafter this Court allowed the said petition by setting aside the above docket order and further directed the Trial Court to issue summons to accused No.3 and proceed with the matter strictly in accordance with law. Despite aforesaid direction of this Court, the learned Magistrate issued NBW afresh against accused No.3 on 12.11.2025 in C.C.No.9947 of 2024 on the file of the learned XV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad as the Police have mentioned that the petitioner did not cooperate with the investigation.

8. It is a trite law that after taking cognizance of an offence, the Magistrate must ordinarily issue summons to the accused. Only if the accused fails