APHC010327672011 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3369] TUESDAY, THE SECOND DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T. MALLIKARJUNA RAO CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 1371/2011 Between: 1. B.RAJENDRA PRASAD AND ANOTHERS, S/O GOPALA RAO R/O SAI RESIDENCY, H.NO.11-4, P&T COLONY, DILSUKHNAGAR, HYDERABAD. 2. B.S.SRINIVASS, S/O GOPALA RAO R/O SAI RESIDENCY, H.NO.11-4, P&T COLONY, DILSUKHNAGAR, HYDERABAD. ...PETITIONER(S) AND 1. STATE OF AP REP BY ITS SI OF POLCE AND ANOTHERS, TANUKU TOWN PS., THROUGH PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF AP., HYDERABAD. 2. VEERAMALLA VEERA VENKATA SANYASAYYA SURYANARAYANCHARYULU, S/O VEERABHAHMAM T.V.MECHANIC R/O OLD TOWN, TANUKU ...RESPONDENT(S): Revision filed under Section 397/401 of Cr.P.C praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the Criminal Revision Case, the High Court may be pleased to allow the revision by setting aside the orders passed in Crl.MP.No.2192/2011 in C.C.No.925/2010 on the file of the Court of the II Addl., judicial Magistrate of 1st Class, Tanuku, dt.27.05.2011. IA NO: 1 OF 2011(CRLRCMP 1971 OF 2011 2 Petition under Section 151 C.P.C. praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to recall the NBWs issued against the petitioner in C.C.No.925/2010 on the file of the Court of the II Additional Judicial Magistrate of 1st Class, Tanuku, pending disposal of the above Crl.R.C. IA NO: 1 OF 2014(CRLRCMP 2658 OF 2014 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to vacate the stay granted by Order dated 01.07.2011 made in Crl.R.CMP.No.1971/2011 in Crl.RC.No.1371/2011 and further direct the registry to return the records in CC.No.925/2010 on the file of the II Addl. JFCM, Tanuku, W.G.District. Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1. V V L N SARMA Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. K. SANDEEP 2. A. BHASKARA CHARY The Court made the following: O R D E R 1. The Criminal Revision Case, has been filed by the petitioners/A.1 and A.2, under Sections 397 and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, ‘Cr.P.C.’), assailing the Order dated 27.05.2011 passed in Crl.M.P.No.2192 of 2011 in C.C.No.925 of 2010, on the file of II Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Tanuku (for short, ‘the trial Court’), whereby the petition filed by the revision petitioners, under Section 70(2) of Cr.P.C. seeking cancellation of Non Bailable Warrants issued against the petitioners, was dismissed. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the 2nd respondent, who is the de facto complainant, initially filed a private complaint before the trial court. The matter was referred to Tanuku Town Police Station, where Crime No.45 of 3 2008 under Section 420 IPC was registered against the petitioners. Subsequently, the police filed a final report declaring the complaint ‘false.’ The 2nd respondent filed a protest petition, and after examining witnesses, the trial court took cognizance against the petitioners under Section 420 read with Section 34 IPC and issued non-bailable warrants on 18.12.2010. The petitioners later filed a petition under Section 70(2) of the Cr.P.C. It is alleged that the petitioners collected Rs.11,00,000/- from the complainant, paid on behalf of all victims, to secure jobs in the T.T.D. and the Judicial Department. Additionally, some serious cases are pending against the petitioners in various courts. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners/ A.1 and A.2, submits that the trial court should have considered the petitioners' valid reasons for recalling the non-bailable warrants (NBWs) and granted their request. It is on record that the 2nd respondent/complainant initially filed a private complaint, which was referred to Tanuku Town Police for investigation. The police registered Crime No. 45 of 2008 under Section 420 of the IPC, but after investigation, filed a final report stating that the case was false. The counsel further argues that the petitioners promptly filed their petition to recall the warrants upon learning of the NBWs issuance. 4. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners/A.1 and A.2, and Sri K.Sandeep, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, appearing for Respondent No.1/State. 5. The main grievance of the learned counsel for the petitioners/A.1 and A.2 is that the trial court issued non-bailable warrants (NBWs) against them without first issuing summons. The counsel assures that the petitioners will appear before the trial court as required and will fully cooperate for the disposal of the case in C.C.No.925 of 2010. 6. Learned counsel for Respondent No. 2/Complainant requested this Court to issue appropriate directions for the speedy disposal of C.C. No. 925 4 of 2010. 7. The defence asserts that after the police concluded their investigation and submitted the final report, the complainant was not satisfied with the outcome and consequently filed a protest petition. Upon the filing of the protest petition, the Trial Court proceeded to examine the witnesses produced by the complainant. Based on the examination, the Trial Court decided to take cognizance of the alleged offence against the petitioners. 8. It is pertinent to note, upon a thorough perusal of the case record, that the offence attributed to the petitioners/A.1 and A.2 is under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), which pertains to the offence of cheating and dishonestly inducing the delivery of property. Significantly, the maximum punishment prescribed under this provision is imprisonment for a term which may extend up to seven years, along with a fine. 9. However, despite the nature of the offence and the punishment provided to the offence, the Trial Court, at the very threshold, chose to issue non- bailable warrants against the petitioners, without any apparent adherence to the mandatory procedural safeguards laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the landmark judgment of Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar1. 10. In Arnesh Kumar, the Hon’ble Supreme Court laid down clear and binding guidelines aimed at preventing the mechanical and routine issuance of arrest warrants, especially in cases where the offence alleged is punishable with imprisonment of up to seven years. The Apex Court emphasized that arrest should not be made merely because the law permits it and that issuing non-bailable warrants, particularly in such cases, must be backed by cogent and compelling reasons recorded by the Magistrate. 11. In the present matter, however, no such reasons have been recorded by the Trial Court while opting to issue NBWs directly, bypassing the more 1 (2014) 8 SCC 273 5 reasonable and less coercive procedural step of issuing summons. The record is conspicuously silent on any justification or urgency that would necessitate the issuance of warrants at this nascent stage of proceedings. The absence of any stated rationale makes it difficult for this Court to discern the Trial Court's order in preferring coercive measures over the ordinary process of law. 12. Furthermore, it is also not the case of the prosecution, nor does it emerge from the facts on record, that there exists a credible or imminent risk of the accused absconding or evading the process of law if they were initially summoned instead of being subjected to arrest through NBWs. There is no material suggesting that the petitioners have either a history of non- cooperation with investigative authorities or any prior conduct indicating a likelihood to flee from justice. 13. In light of the above, this Court finds the issuance of non-bailable warrants, in the given circumstances, to be prima facie disproportionate and in derogation of the procedural aspect mandated by judicial precedent. Thus, the action of the Trial Court, therefore, prima facie appears to be in contravention of the principles of natural justice and the binding directions of the Supreme Court, and warrants interference in the interest of justice and fair procedure. 14. Upon a careful and conscientious consideration of the submissions advanced by the learned counsel representing both parties, and after meticulously examining the material available on record, this Court deems it just, proper, and expedient to issue the following directions in the interest of justice: The petitioners (A.1 and A.2), are hereby directed to voluntarily surrender themselves before the Court of the II Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Tanuku, within a period of four (4) weeks from the date on which a copy of this Order is received by them or their counsel. Upon such voluntary surrender, the petitioners shall be required to execute a personal bond in the sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand Only) each with one surety each, for the same amount, to the satisfaction of the learned II 6 Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Tanuku. It is further clarified that upon compliance with the conditions as mentioned above, the Non-Bailable Warrants previously issued against the petitioners shall, ipso facto, stand cancelled. 15. Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Case is disposed of. Interim orders granted earlier, if any, shall stand vacated, and the miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed. _____________________________ JUSTICE T. MALLIKARJUNA RAO Date: 02.09.2025 MS 7 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE T. MALLIKARJUNA RAO Criminal Revision Case No.1371 of 2011 Date:02.09.2025 MS