APHC010267482026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3521] THURSDAY,THE SEVENTH DAY OF MAY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 4248/2026 Between: 1. M MONIKA, ,D/O. NANDAKUMAR, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS,ASST. MANAGER,MAXIMA INVESTMENTS AND FINANCE COMPANY,R/O. 4TH MAIN ROAD EXTENSION,KOTTUPURAM, CHENNAI - 600085. ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, ,SHO, KRISHNALANKA P.S., VIJAYAWADA CITYREP. BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH BUILDINGS,AT AMARAVATI - 522237. 2. MYLAVARAPU DAYANIDHI, ,S/O. VENKATESWARLU, AGED 32,R/O. D.NO. 41-1-1/2, RAMAKRISHNA PURAM,VIJAYAWADA, AP- 520003.NOT A NECESSARY PARTY ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S): Counsel for the Petitioner/accused: 1. MUTYALA SOBHANADRI NAIDU Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S): 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR The Court made the following: 2 ORDER: Criminal Petition has been filed by the Petitioners under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for brevity ‘the BNSS’), seeking quashment of the docket order dated 12.03.2026 in Crl.M.P.No.376 of 2026 in C.C.No.669 of 2015 pending on the file of the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Vijayawada against Petitioner/Accused No.4. 2. Sri Mutyala Sobhanadri Naidu, learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that the impugned docket orders dated 12.03.2026 and 06.05.2026, whereby a Non‑Bailable Warrant was issued and its recall refused, are manifestly unsustainable in law and contrary to the settled principles governing judicial discretion. It is urged that the Petitioner, a resident of Chennai, was prevented from attending the Court on 12.03.2026 solely due to severe viral fever, her absence being neither deliberate nor contumacious, and that her counsel had duly filed an application under Section 355 of ‘the BNSS’ seeking exemption from personal attendance. The learned Magistrate, in disregarding such bona fide explanation and in resorting to the coercive process of NBW merely because the informant was present, failed to appreciate that the Petitioner has been regularly appearing before the Court and that her presence on that particular day was not indispensable. It is further submitted that issuance of NBW, being a drastic measure, ought to be invoked only as a last resort, and the refusal to recall the same despite the Petitioner’s readiness to furnish sureties and cooperate with the trial amounts 3 to a miscarriage of justice. Hence, it is urged that the impugned order be quashed, and the execution of the NBW stayed. 3. Ms. P.Akhila Naidu, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor submits that the learned Magistrate acted well within discretion in issuing the Non-Bailable Warrant, as the Petitioner’s absence stalled a case pending since 2015. The claim of illness was unsupported by medical proof, and exemption under Section 355 of ‘the BNSS’ is not automatic when the Court requires the accused’s presence. 4. Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, the Criminal Petition is disposed of, and the order dated 12.03.2026 issued by the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Vijayawada is hereby modified subject to the Petitioner appearing before the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Vijayawada on the next date of hearing. As a sequel, interlocutory applications, if any pending, shall stand closed. _________________________ Dr. Y. LAKSHMANA RAO, J Dated: 07.05.2026 VTS