SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Headnote Court Copy Facts Arguments Court observation Judicial Analysis Case Map Category Hierarchy Table of Content
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 15957

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE L. VICTORIA GOWRI
Kannan – Appellant
Versus
State Of Tamilnadu Rep By In – Respondent



##PAGE1##

Crl.O.P.(MD)No.2002 of 2026

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

DATED : 03.02.2026

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE L.VICTORIA GOWRI

Crl.O.P.(MD)No.2002 of 2026

Kannan ... Petitioner

Vs.

1. The State of Tamil Nadu,

Represented by the Inspector of Police,

Sivagangai Taluk Circle,

Sivagangai District.

2.Sigappiammal ... Respondents

PRAYER : Petition filed under Section 528 of BNSS, 2023 to direct the

Judicial Magistrate Court No.II, Sivagangai to recall the Non Bailable Warrant

issued on 08.10.2012 against the petitioner in CC.No.85/2009 on the file of the

Honble Judicial Magistrate No.II, Sivagangai and release the petitioner on bail

on the same itself in compliance with the directions of this Court.

For Petitioner : Mr.V.S.Kumara Guru

For Respondents : Mr.M.Sakthi Kumar (R1)

Government Advocate

1/10

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/02/2026 09:20:10 pm )

##PAGE2##

Crl.O.P.(MD)No.2002 of 2026

ORDER

PROLOGUE

The criminal process is not merely a mechanism for securing convictions,

but a constitutional instrument for balancing the competing imperatives of

societal order, victim justice, and individual liberty. While the presence of an

accused before the trial Court is indispensable for the orderly progress of

criminal proceedings, coercive processes such as Non-Bailable Warrants are

not intended to operate as punitive tools, divorced from the realities of human

conduct and procedural contingencies.

2. Equally, the inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 528 of

the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (corresponding to Section 482

CrPC) is extraordinary in nature and cannot be permitted to supplant or short-

circuit the statutory remedies expressly provided before the trial Courts. An

overzealous invocation of such jurisdiction in matters relating to recall of

warrants would not only erode the authority of trial Courts but would also

impede the expeditious disposal of criminal cases, thereby frustrating the

mandate of Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

2/10

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/02/2026 09:20:10 pm )

##PAGE3##

Crl.O.P.(MD)No.2002 of 2026

3. It is in the above constitutional and statutory backdrop that the present

Criminal Original Petition, seeking a direction relating to recall of a Non-

Bailable Warrant, falls for consideration.

GIST OF THE CASES & RELIEF SOUGHT

4. Gist of the Case:

A case in Crime No.63 of 2007 has been registered against the petitioner

for the offences under Sections 394 of IPC, which culminated in charge sheet in

CC No.85 of 2009 before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Sivagangai.

5. Relief Sought:

To recall the warrant issued against the petitioner by setting aside

warrant dated 08.10.2012, issued by the Judicial Magistrate No.II, Sivagangai

in CC No.85 of 2009.

6. Grounds urged by the petitioner:

Since the co-accused had been acquitted by the trial Court, the petitioner

was under the impression that the case had already been concluded and was

unaware of the hearing dates in the aforesaid case. Only subsequently, the

petitioner came to know about the warrant issued against him.

3/10

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/02/2026 09:20:10 pm )

##PAGE4##

Crl.O.P.(MD)No.2002 of 2026

Submissions:

7. The learned counsels for the petitioner relying upon the judgment of

this Court in Crl.O.P.No.6472 of 2025 dated 07.03.2025, Crl.O.P.No.4514 of

2016 dated 02.03.2016 and similar orders, submitted that, this Court has

appreciated similar cases and had allowed the same by directing the petitioner

to appear before the learned trial Court and file a petition under section 70(2) of

Cr.P.C,1973/ 72(2) of BNSS,2023, to recall NBW already issued against him

and on filing the same the trial court has further been directed to consider the

same on its own merits in accordance with law on the same day, making it clear

that the disposal of the case in that manner by this Court do not amount to

consider the recall petition favourably. Citing the same, the learned counsel for

the petitioner sought for

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top