Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 22377
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
L. Victoria Gowri, J
Kalist Prema – Appellant
Versus
The State of Tamil Nadu – Respondent
CRL OP(MD). No.2114 of 2026
For the Appellants/Petitioners: P. Sonu
For the Respondents: M. Sakthi Kumar
The inherent jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 482 CrPC or Section 528 BNSS cannot be invoked for the simple recall of a Non-Bailable Warrant, as the primary statutory remedy lies in applying to the issuing trial court.
Headnote:The petitioner sought a direction under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, to recall a Non-Bailable Warrant issued on 09.01.2026 in C.C.No.99/2014 by the Judicial Magistrate No.II, Kuzhithurai, on the grounds of illness. The court found that the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court cannot be used to bypass the statutory remedies available before the trial court. The central issue was "Whether this Court can, in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC / Section 528 BNSS, directly interfere with or recall Non-Bailable Warrants issued by the trial Courts". The court reasoned that a warrant remains in force until cancelled by the issuing court, and the inherent power is not a substitute for statutory remedies nor a means to short-circuit the procedural hierarchy envisaged by law. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is disposed of, directing the petitioner to approach the trial court for recall of the warrant.
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.
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.
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
Gist of the Case:
A case in Crime No.49 of 2013 has been registered against the petitioner for the offences under Sections 420 of IPC @ 468, 423 and 120(b) of IPC, which culminated in charge sheet in CC No.99 of 2014 before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Kuzhithurai.
Relief Sought:
To recall the warrant issued against the petitioner by setting aside warrant dated 09.01.2026, issued by the Judicial Magistrate No.II, Kuzhithurai, in C.C.No.99 of 2014.
Grounds urged by the petitioner:
Since the petitioner, due to his illness, on 09.01.2026 she could not attend the Court for hearing and therefore, the warrant issued against her.
Submissions:
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.
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 another11994 SCC OnLine Mad 860 and pointed out that the said case was not brought to the attention of this Court, during disposal of 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, by this Court and pressed for dismissal of the cases.
POINT FOR CONSIDERATION
Whether this Court can, in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC / Section 528 BNSS, directly interfere with or recall Non-Bailable Warrants issued by the trial Courts, or issue directions dispensing with personal appearance, in the teeth of the statutory remedy available before the very Court which issued t
