NBW issued to secure presence, not punish; recall possible without accused attending court as precondition.

ORDER

This Criminal revision case has been filed seeking quashment of the order dated 24.03.2026 made in Crl.M.P.No.2696 of 2026 in C.C.No.2215 of 2025 by the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Coimbatore and to consequently, recall the non-bailable warrant dated 03.03.2026 issued in C.C.No.2215 of 2025 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate Court No.I, Coimbatore.

2. The brief facts necessary for the disposal of the case are as follows:-

The petitioner is an accused facing trial for the offences under Sections 468, 471 r/w. 120B of IPC in C.C.No.2215 of 2025 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate Court No.I, Coimbatore, arising out of the FIR in Crime No.820 of 2010. While so, on 03.03.2026, as the petitioner did not appear before the trial court, Non-Bailable Warrant was issued against him on the very same day. Immediately thereafter, the petitioner filed a petition under Section 72(2) of BNSS in Crl.M.P.No.2696 of 2026 in C.C.No.2215 of 2025 through his counsel seeking to recall the Non- Bailable warrant issued against him and the trial court, vide order dated 24.03.2026, dismissed the said petition. Challenging the same, the petitioner has come up with this revision.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner made the following submissions:-

3.1 Initially, the final report was filed before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.V, Coimbatore in C.C.No.1461 of 2019, where the petitioner had appeared regularly. Subsequently, on administrative grounds, the case was transferred to the file of the Judicial Magistrate Court No. I, Coimbatore, and renumbered as C.C.No.2215 of 2025. 3.2 Owing to his indisposition, the petitioner was residing at his daughter’s residence in Banglore. While so, as the summons was served by way of affixture at the residence of the petitioner's brother, the petitioner was not put on proper notice regarding the hearing date, and hence, he was not able to appear before the trial court on 03.03.2026 and the non-appearance on the part of the petitioner before the trial court is neither willful nor wanton.

3.3 Immediately after coming to know about the issuance of Non-

Bailable Warrant, the petitioner filed a recall petition. However, the trial court, vide impugned order dated 24.03.2026, dismissed the said petition on the ground that the petitioner did not appear in person at the time of filing of the recall petition, which is not sustainable, since his non appearance is only due to his continued ill health and apprehension of arrest. The petitioner has no intention to protract the proceedings or evade the process of law.

3.4 When the petitioner is ready to co-operate for the speedy disposal of the case and undertakes to appear before the Trial Court as and when required, he cannot be asked to be present in Court as a condition precedent to recall the NBW. Hence, the impugned dismissal order may be set aside.

4. Per contra, the learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side)

appearing for the respondent submitted that the occurrence is of the year 2010, for which, initially, the final report was filed before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.V, Coimbatore in C.C.No.1461 of 2019 and the same was subsequently transferred to the file of the Judicial Magistrate Court No.I, Coimbatore and re-numbered as C.C.No.2215 of 2025. Further, though it is the claim of the petitioner that he was not put on proper notice of the hearing date as the summons was served at his Ooty address, it is pertinent to note that A2 and A3, who are none other than the brothers of the petitioner, appeared before the trial court on the scheduled date. Given their appearance and the relationship with t