Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2025 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 7247

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 02.01.2026 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE L.VICTORIA GOWRI Crl.O.P.(MD).No.21580, 22033, 22630, 21890 and 22808 of 2025 and Crl.M.P.(MD)Nos.19546 and 19550, of 2025 Crl.O.P.(MD).No.21580 of 2025 Manuvel Mariya Selvam ... Petitioner/Sole Accused Vs.
1. State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by its Inspector of Police, Boothapandi Police Station, Kanyakumari District.
.... Respondent
2. Nirmala .... Respondent /Complainant Prayer : Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 528 of BNSS, 2023, to direct the District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Boothapandy, to dispose the petition filed u/S.70(2) of Cr.P.C. on the same day to recall the non bailable warrant issued against the petitioner/accused in S.T.C.No.80 of 2021 on the file of the District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Boothapandy.
For Petitioner : Mr.S.Sivakumar For R-1 : Mr.Thanga Aravindh.B Government Advocate (Crl. Side) Crl.O.P.(MD).No.22033 of 2025 Nirmala Goldwin ... Petitioner Vs.
1. The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by Inspector of Police, Rajakkamangalam Police Station, Kanyakumari District.
2. Philama Antony .... Respondents Prayer : Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 528 of BNSS, 2023, to direct the Judicial Magistrate/Fast Track Court, Nagercoil, to consider the recall petition of the petitioner for NBW to be filed in C.C.No.1137 of 2012 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate/Fast Track Court, Nagercoil and to accept his surrender.
For Petitioner : Mr.H.Thayumanaswamy For R-1 : Mr.M.Sakthi Kumar, Government Advocate (Crl. Side)
Crl.O.P.(MD).Nos.22630 of 2025 M/s. Tej Ram Dharam Paul Pvt. Ltd., Rep. by its Managing Partner Mr.Manmohan Kumar Puria ... Petitioners / Accused No. 2 Vs.
Food Safety Officer, Code No. 24-470, Cumbum Municipality and Union and Gudalur Municipality, Food Safety and Drug Administration Department, Teni District.
.... Respondent /Complainant Prayer : Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 528 of BNSS, 2023, to recall the Non-Bailable Warrant dated 30.10.2025 issued in S.T.C.No.354 of 2025 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate Court, Uthamapalayam, Theni District, and direct the Trial Court to consider and dispose of the petitioner's recall.
For Petitioner : Mr.K.Jayabalan For Respondent : Mr.M.Sakthi Kumar Government Advocate (Crl. Side)
Crl.O.P.(MD).Nos.21890 of 2025 Valsala Kumari ... Petitioner / Sole Accused Vs.
1. The Inspector of Police, District Crime Records Bureau (DCRB) Special Team Police for Executing NBI in N.I. Act Cases, Kanyakumari District at Nagercoil.
(Investigation Officer)
2. M/s. Sree Gogulam Chit & Finance Co. (P) Ltd., Regd Office at Chennai, Represented by Authorized Agent, A.Chockalingam, S/o.Annamalai Pillai, M/s.Sree Gokulam Chit & Finance Co (P) Ltd., 15/99, 1st floor, S.U.S.Building, Palace Road, Thuckalay, Kanyakumari District. .... Respondent /Complainant Prayer : Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 528 of BNSS, 2023, to issue a direction to the Judicial Magistrate Court No.I, Kuzhithurai to recall the NBW (Non Bailable Warrant) issued in STC.No.171 of 2016.
For Petitioner : Mr.M.R.Sreenivasan For R-1 : Mr.M.Sakthi Kumar Government Advocate (Crl. Side)
Crl.O.P.(MD).Nos.22808 of 2025 Dr.S.Sivasamy ... Petitioner / Accused Vs.
State Represented by the Drugs Inspector, Pudukkottai Range in charge, O/o. The Drugs Inspector, 1093, Kannadasan Salai, Rajagopalapuram Post, Pudukkottai – 622 003.
.... Respondent /Complainant Prayer : Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 528 of BNSS, 2023, to direct the learned Judicial Magistrate Avudaiyarkovil, Pudukkottai District to recall the warrant issued against the petitioner on 23.07.2024 in connection with the STC.No. 86/2024 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Avudaiyarkovil and considering the warrant recall petition filed by the petitioner under Section 72(2) BNSS on the same of day of its filing without physical presence of the petitioner.
For Petitioner : Mr.R.Sevugaraja For Respondent : Mr.M.Sakthi Kumar Government Advocate (Crl. Side)

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: S. Sivakumar, H. Thayumanaswamy, K. Jayabalan, M.R. Sreenivasan, R. Sevugaraja
For the Respondents: Thanga Aravindh.B, M. Sakthi Kumar

High Courts should not exercise inherent jurisdiction to recall warrants when a specific statutory remedy exists before the trial court. Parties must first exhaust procedural remedies in the lower court; if unsuccessful, they may access legal appellate or revisional mechanisms as provided by law.

Headnote:(A) Criminal Procedure - Non-Bailable Warrants - Recall of warrants - Inherent jurisdiction of High Court - Scope of - Whether High Court can directly interfere or recall warrants when a statutory remedy exists before the trial court - Court held that inherent powers cannot be substituted for statutory remedies or used to bypass the procedural hierarchy. (Paras 17, 18, 19)

(B) Practice and Procedure - Judicial obligations - Trial courts must act with promptitude in disposing of recall applications - Mechanical or punitive approaches are discouraged to balance individual liberty and the expeditious administration of justice. (Paras 20, 24)

Facts of the case:
Multiple petitions were filed before the High Court seeking the recall of non-bailable warrants issued by various trial courts. The petitioners cited medical conditions, age, procedural errors in service of summons, and jurisdictional issues as grounds for their requests, seeking direct intervention from the High Court to have the warrants recalled without physical appearance before the lower courts.

Findings of Court:
The court determined that the existing statutory framework provides a clear remedy for the recall of warrants through the issuing trial courts. Direct interference through inherent jurisdiction at this stage would disrupt the procedural hierarchy and is contrary to established legal principles regarding the exhaustion of remedies.

Issues: Whether the High Court should exercise its inherent jurisdiction to recall warrants or direct the trial courts to dispose of recall petitions in the absence of the accused, or whether such matters should be addressed strictly through statutory channels in the trial courts.

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that inherent jurisdiction cannot be invoked to bypass statutory remedies available under the procedural code. The proper procedure requires the petitioner to move the trial court for warrant recall, with the trial court directed to hear such applications expeditiously. Revisional scrutiny is the appropriate recourse if the trial court rejects the application.

Result: Petitions disposed of with directions to approach the trial courts, which are mandated to consider such applications expeditiously on their merits.

ORDER

Prologue:

The criminal justice system is a delicate balance between the authority of the State to enforce law and order and the constitutional obligation to protect individual liberty. While coercive processes such as warrants are indispensable tools to secure the presence of an accused and ensure progress of criminal proceedings, they are not intended to operate as punitive instruments divorced from procedural safeguards. At the same time, the unchecked invocation of the inherent jurisdiction of this Court to interdict every warrant issued by a trial court risks paralysing the trial process itself.

2. The enactment of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, reinforces a justice-oriented, victim-centric and citizen- responsive framework, while preserving the cardinal guarantee of a fair and speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution. Courts at all levels are therefore enjoined to ensure that criminal proceedings move forward expeditiously, without either trivialising liberty or undermining the authority of the learned Trial Court. It is against this constitutional and statutory backdrop that the present batch of petitions, all arising from the issuance of Non-Bailable Warrants, fall for consideration.

Crl.O.P.(MD) No.21580 of 2025:

3. Gist of the Case:

The petitioner, an accused in a prosecution under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act in S.T.C. No.80 of 2021, challenges the issuance of a Non-Bailable Warrant by the learned Trial Court. Her absence was attributed to a documented medical condition involving knee surgery and post-operative treatment. The warrant was issued following dismissal of her petition to condone absence, prompting apprehension of arrest.

4. Relief Sought:

A direction to the learned District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate, Boothapandi, to consider and dispose of the petitioner’s application under Section 70(2) Cr.P.C., 1973, for recall of the NBW on the same day of filing, without insisting on personal appearance.

Crl.O.P.(MD) No.22630 of 2025:

5. Gist of the Case:

The petitioner, a Delhi-based tobacco manufacturing company arrayed as Accused No.2 under the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006, challenges the issuance of a Non-Bailable Warrant in S.T.C. No.354 of 2025. The prosecution alleges that tobacco products were found in a shop in Tamil Nadu and treated as “unsafe food”. The petitioner contends that tobacco products are governed by COTPA, 2003, that there is no nexus between it and the alleged stock, and that the NBW was issued without recording satisfaction of abscondence and in violation of procedures governing execution outside the State.

6. Relief Sought:

Recall of the NBW dated 30.10.2025, a direction to consider the recall petition without insisting on surrender, permission to appear through counsel or video conference, dispensation of personal appearance, and stay of further proceedings.

Crl.O.P.(MD) No.22033 of 2025:

7. Gist of the Case:

The petitioner is an accused in a cheque dishonour case originally instituted in 2004 and later transferred and renumbered as C.C. No.1137 of 2012. She claims lack of knowledge of the transfer and non-receipt of summons, resulting in issuance of an NBW on 24.09.2025. The petitioner disputes the transaction and cites serious medical ailments.

8. Relief Sought:

A direction to the learned Trial Court to consider the petitioner’s surrender and recall petition for the NBW on the same day and pass appropriate orders.

Crl.O.P.(MD) No.22808 of 2025:

9. Gist of the Case:

The petitioner, an elderly medical practitioner aged over 75 years, faces prosecution under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act arising from an inspection in 2011. Though his personal appearance had earlier been dispensed with, the case remained dormant for over a decade. Upon transfer and renumbering in 2024, an NBW was issued allegedly without proper service of summons.

10. Relief Sought:

Recall of the NBW dated 23.07.2024 and a direction to consider the petitioner’s application under Section 72(2) B

Click Here to Read the rest of this document