Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 32159
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
Victoria Gowri, J
Stalin – Appellant
Versus
The State of Tamilnadu Rep. – Respondent
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.4432 of 2026
For the Appellants/Petitioners: P. Sonu
For the Respondents: A. Thiruvadikumar
Inherent jurisdiction under Section 528 BNSS (or Section 482 CrPC) cannot be invoked for the simple recall of a Non-Bailable Warrant when a statutory remedy exists to approach the issuing trial court.
Headnote:The petitioner sought directions under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, to recall a Non-Bailable Warrant issued by the Judicial Magistrate No.I, Kuzhithurai in C.C.No.987 of 2025, arising from an offence under Section 305(a) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. The petitioner contended that illness prevented his attendance in court. The court found that the petitioner is a wanted accused in a theft case and had not approached the court with clean hands. The primary issue was whether the court could exercise inherent jurisdiction under Section 528 BNSS / Section 482 CrPC to recall warrants issued by trial courts. The court reasoned that a warrant remains in force until it is executed or cancelled by the issuing court, and the primary remedy is to approach that very court. It was held that inherent power is not a substitute for statutory remedies nor can it be employed to short-circuit the procedural hierarchy envisaged by law. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed, as the case pertains to an offence of theft and the petitioner is a wanted accused.
PRAYER : Petition filed under Section 528 of BNSS, 2023 to direct the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Kuzhithurai, to accept the surrender of the petitioner and recall the warrant and to consider it on the same day for the non-bailable warrant issued against the petitioner on 23.01.2026 in C.C.No.987 of 2025 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Kuzhithurai.
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.288 of 2025 has been registered against the petitioner for the offence under Section 305(a) of BNS, which culminated in charge sheet in C.C.No.987 of 2025 before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Kuzhithurai.
Relief Sought:
To recall the warrant issued against the petitioner by setting aside warrant dated 23.01.2026, issued by the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Kuzhithurai in C.C.No.987 of 2025.
Grounds urged by the petitioner:
The petitioner has nothing to do with the alleged occurrence and he has been regularly attending the Court, due to illness, he could not attend the Court for hearing and thereafter, NBW was issued against him.
Submissions:
The learned counsel 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 Additional Public Prosecutor 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.Saleem11994 SCC OnLine Mad 860 and others vs State another 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 o
