Inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC cannot replace statutory remedies; recall of warrants lies primarily within trial court's purview.

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.

3. Since no adverse order is passed against the respondent, notice to the respondent is dispensed with.

4. 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

5. Gist of the Case:

The respondent has lodged a complaint against the petitioner in S.T.C.No.416 of 2018 under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, FTC at Magistrate Level, Madurai. Aggrieved by the order passed in S.T.C.No.416 of 2018, the petitioner had filed Crl.A.No.239 of 2024 along with Crl.M.P.No.7475 of 2024 before the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Madurai. In Crl.M.P.No.7475 of 2024 seeking suspension of sentence, 20% of the compensation amount was directed to be deposited. Due to the non- compliance of the order, Non-Bailable Warrant was issued against the petitioner.

6. Relief Sought:

To direct the learned V Additional District Judge, Madurai to recall the Non Bailable Warrant issued against the Petitioner /Accused, on the Petitioner's surrender on the same day, in connection with in Crl.A.No.239 of 2024 dated 17.07.2025 on the file of the learned V Additional District Judge, Madurai. 7. Grounds urged by the petitioner:

Due to his inability to procure the required amount, he was unable to comply the order passed by the learned Trial Court.

Submissions:

8. 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 a similar order seeking disposition of the case in a similar manner.

9. Per contra, the learned Government Advocate categorically contended that this Court cannot invoke section 482/528 Cr.P.C/BNSS in warrant recall matters and insisted that the petitioner’s remedy lies with the trial Court and on rejection by the Trial Court, before revision jurisdiction either before the sessions Court or this Court. He further submitted that this matter is already settled by this Court by Hon’ble Justice Janarthanam, J. in P.A.Saleem and others vs State