HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N. TUKARAMJI CRL.P.Nos.8727, 8728, 8729 and 8730 of 2025

COMMON ORDER

Criminal Petition No.8727 of 2025 is filed under Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘the BNSS’) seeking quashment of the order, dated 04.07.2025 passed in Crl.M.P.No.281 of 2025 in C.C.No.1 of 2024 on the file of the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Nalgonda.

2. Criminal Petition No.8728 of 2025 is filed under Section 528 of the BNSS seeking quashment of the order, dated 04.07.2025 passed in Crl.M.P.No.284 of 2025 in C.C.No.5 of 2024 on the file of the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Nalgonda.

3. Criminal Petition No.8729 of 2025 is filed under Section 528 of the BNSS seeking quashment of the order, dated on the file of the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Nalgonda.

4. Criminal Petition No.8730 of 2025 is filed under Section 528 of the BNSS seeking quashment of the order, dated on the file of the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Nalgonda.

5. Since the petitioner is the same in all the Criminal Petitions and the legal issues involved are identical, all the petitions are heard and being disposed of by way of this common order.

6. The relevant facts, briefly stated that, the petitioner has been arrayed as Accused No. 4 in the aforementioned Calendar Cases, which have been registered for offences punishable under Sections 406, 417, 418, 420, and 120-B read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC); Section 5 of the Andhra Pradesh Protection of Depositors and Financial Establishments Act, 1999; and Sections 3, 4, 5, and 6 read with Section 21 of the Prize Chits and Money Circulation Schemes (Banning) Act, 1978.

7. Upon issuance and service of summons, the petitioner failed to appear before the trial Court. Consequently, the trial Court issued Non-Bailable Warrants (NBWs) against the petitioner in all the Calendar Cases. In response, the petitioner filed miscellaneous petitions under Section 70(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.), seeking recall of the NBWs.

8. The trial Court, by way of the impugned orders, dismissed the said petitions on the ground that the petitioner neither appeared before the Court nor demonstrated any compelling justification for his absence. Aggrieved by these orders, the petitioner has filed the present Criminal Petitions in the respective Calendar Cases.

9. I have heard Sri M.V.S.Sai Sharath, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Jithendar Rao Veeramalla, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of respondent No.1-State.

10. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, even as per the counter affidavit filed by the prosecution, the petitioner served as an Additional Director of the company only for a limited duration, specifically, a period of four months during the financial year 2007– 2008, and for merely two days in 2010. The charge sheets in the relevant cases were filed in 2013 and 2014, which is significantly after the petitioner had ceased to be associated with the company. Therefore, it is contended that there is no prima facie material to suggest the petitioner's involvement in the alleged offences so as to warrant his prosecution. Counsel further submits that, upon learning of the issuance of Non-Bailable Warrants (NBWs) and apprehending imminent arrest, the petitioner caused the filing of petitions under Section 70(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.), seeking recall of the said warrants, albeit in absentia.

11. In support of his plea, learned counsel places reliance on the decision of this Court in Criminal Petition No. 12140 of 2023, wherein a Coordinate Bench, having regard to the peculiar facts and circumstances of that case, allowed the petition despite the petitioner's absence before the trial Court, and set aside the order issuing NBWs. Drawing a parallel to that precedent, counsel urges that similar relief be extended to the present petitioner.

12. It is further asserted that the petitio