Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Tel) 19528
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
J. Sreenivas Rao, J
B. Rajesh Reddy – Appellant
Versus
State of Telangana – Respondent
CRIMINAL PETITION Nos.9375 and 9377 of 2026
For the Appellants/Petitioners: J. Pradeep Kiran
For the Respondents: Jithendar Rao Veeramalla, Ch. Srinivas, R. Janakiram
The court may recall Non-Bailable Warrants and Look Out Circulars and permit the return of a passport for employment purposes if the accused provides a sufficient undertaking to appear for trial and executes appropriate bonds, despite pending maintenance disputes.
Headnote:The petitioner, accused of offences under S.498-A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and S.6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, challenged the trial court's dismissal of petitions to recall a Non-Bailable Warrant (NBW), recall a Look Out Circular (LOC), and return his passport for renewal and employment purposes in the USA. The court noted that the petitioner returned to India to perform his father's last rites and expressed readiness to appear for examination under S.251 of the Cr.P.C. The main issues concerned whether the petitioner should be granted relief regarding the NBW, LOC, and passport return despite allegations of non-cooperation and arrears in interim maintenance. The court reasoned that given the petitioner's willingness to appear in person on the next scheduled date and the necessity of passport renewal for employment, the reliefs could be granted subject to strict conditions, while leaving the respondent liberty to seek remedies for maintenance arrears. Subject to the above conditions, both the Criminal Petitions are allowed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. challenge to trial court's refusal to recall nbw, loc, and return passport. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. contested allegations of non-cooperation and failure to pay interim maintenance. (Para 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 3. court's verification of petitioner's presence and necessity of passport for employment. (Para 7 , 8 , 9) |
| 4. conditional grant of relief based on undertaking to appear and payment of arrears. (Para 10 , 11) |
| 5. final allowance of the criminal petitions. (Para 12) |
: COMMON ORDER :
These criminal petitions have been filed aggrieved by the orders passed by the learned XIII Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate at Hyderabad in Crl.M.P.Nos.543 of 2026 and 544 of 2026 in C.C.No.2264 of 2019 dated 10.06.2026 respectively, where under the petitions filed by the petitioner seeking to recall the Non-Bailable Warrant (NBW) issued against him on 01.04.2025 and to direct the police to recall the Look Out Circular (LOC) pending against him and to return his passport bearing No.Z3977390 for the purpose of renewal and permission to travel to the U.S.A. for continuation of his employment were dismissed.
2. Heard Mr.J.Pradeep Kiran, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr.Ch.Srinivas, learned counsel, representing Mr.R.Janakiram, learned counsel for respondent No.2, through video conference and Mr.Jithendar Rao Veeramalla, learned counsel for respondent No.1, in both the criminal petitions. With their consent, these criminal petitions are disposed at the stage of admission.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is accused No.1 in C.C. No.2264 of 2019 for the offences punishable under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short ‘the IPC’) and Section 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 (for short ‘the D.P. Act’). The learned trial Court on 01.04.2025 issued NBW against the petitioner and he had filed Crl.M.P.No.543 of 2026 to recall the NBW and to direct the police to recall the LOC pending against him. He also filed Crl.P.No.544 of 2026 seeking to return his passport bearing No.Z3977390 for the purpose of renewal and permission to travel to U.S.A. for continuation of his employment. The learned trial Court dismissed both the petitions without properly considering the contentions raised by the petitioner though the petitioner is ready and willing to appear before the trial Court whenever his presence is required i.e., at the stage of examination under Sections 251 and 313 of the Cr.P.C. and also at the stage of pronouncing the judgment. The matter before the trial Court is posted to 03.07.2026 for examination of the petitioner under Section 251 of the Cr.P.C. and the petitioner is intending to appear before the trial Court on the said date and ready to face the examination under Section 251 of the Cr.P.C. In spite of the same, the learned trial Court dismissed both the petitions and the same is contrary to law.
4. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No.2 vehemently contended that the learned trial Court took cognizance on 06.02.2019 and issued summons to the petitioner and since then the petitioner did not appear before the trial Court and not cooperating with the learned trial Court. Due to his non-cooperation, the matter before the trial Court is adjourning from time to time. Hence, the trial Court has rightly dismissed the above two petitions.
5. He further submitted that respondent No.2 filed DVC No.106 of 2022 before the IV Metropolitan Magistrate (Traffic Mobile Court), Hyderabad, claiming various reliefs. In the said case, respondent No.2 filed Crl.M.P.No.501 of 2022 for grant of interim maintenance and the learned Magistrate on 12.09.2022 allowed the said petition in part directing the petitioner to pay an amount of Rs.25,000/- per month towards interim maintenance and the petitioner is due huge amount towards arrears of maintenance.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner by way of reply submitted that the petitioner had already paid an amount
