HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. KANTHA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO.9286 OF 2010 DATE: 20.09.2010 BETWEEN: 1. Meka Karthik (A-1). 2. Meka Jayasree (A-2). 3. Dhakshram Sudhakar (A-3). - - - Petitioners/A-1 to A-3. AND 1. Gurramkonda Saritha. 2. The State of A.P., Rep. by Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad. - - - Respondents This Court made the following : HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.KANTHA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO.9286 OF 2010 ORDER: This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking to quash the Non Bailable Warrants issued against the petitioners and direct the Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Chirala to recall the NBWs issued against the petitioners on 06-09- 2010 in P.R.C No.46 of 2010. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Public Prosecutor for the State. The brief facts leading to filing of present Criminal Petition are as follows : The first respondent herein filed a complaint against the petitioners in the Court of Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Chirala, alleging commission of offences punishable under Sections 420 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3 (1)(x) and Section 3 (1) (xii) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (For brevity ‘the Act’). The learned Magistrate forwarded the case to the police under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. for the purpose of investigation. On receiving the same, the police registered a case in Crime No.24 of 2010 of Chirala I Town Law and Order police station under Section 420 and Sections 3 (1)(x) of the Act. According to the first respondent, she belongs to Erukula community which is a scheduled tribe and the petitioner belongs to Telaga community which is a non scheduled caste and scheduled tribe. The first petitioner loved the first respondent and developed physical contact with her and when she insisted him to marry, he refused to marry her. The second and third accused being mother and maternal uncle of A-1, supported A-1 and abused the first respondent by naming her caste. The Sub-divisional Police Officer, Chirala, conducted investigation into the above facts and filed a final report and referred the complaint as false. Thereafter, the first respondent filed a protest petition and the learned Magistrate recorded the sworn statement of the complainant and 5 witnesses and took the complaint on file on 06- 09-2010 under sections 420 IPC and Section 3 (1)(x) of the (POA) Act and straightaway issued NBWs to secure the attendance of the accused. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the approach adopted by the Magistrate in straightaway issuing NBWs is illegal and therefore a direction may be issued to the learned Magistrate to withdraw the NBWs issued against the petitioners. In support of his contention he relied upon a decision reported in Inder Mohan Goswami and Another Vs. State of Uttaranchal and others[1] where the Honourable Supreme Court laid down the following principles as to when NBWs should be issued : “53. Non-bailable warrant should be issued to bring a person to Court when summons or bailable warrants would be unlikely to have the desired result. This could be when : · It is reasonable to believe that the person will not voluntarily appear in court; or · The police authorities are unable to find the person to serve him with a summon; or · It is considered that the person could harm someone if not placed into custody immediately. 54. As far as possible, if the court is of the opinion that a summon will suffice in getting the appearance of the accused in the court, the summon or the bailable warrants should be preferred. The warrants either bailable or non- bailable should never be issued without proper scrutiny of facts and complete application of mind, due to the extremely serious consequences and ramifications which ensure on issuance of warrants. The court must very carefully examine whether the criminal complaint or FIR has not been filed with an oblique motive. 55. In complaint cases, at the first instance, the court should direct serving of the summons along with the copy of the complaint. If the accused seem to be avoiding the summons, the court, in the second instance should issue bailable warrant. In the third instance, when the court is fully satisfied that the accused is avoiding the court’s proceeding intentionally, the process of issuance of the non-bailable warrant should be resorted to. Personal liberty is paramount, therefore, we caution courts at the first and second instance to refrain from issuing non-bailable warrants. 56. The power being discretionary must be exercised judiciously with extreme care and caution. The court should properly balance both personal liberty and societal interest before issuing warrants. There cannot be any straitjacket formula for issuance of warrants but as a general rule, unless an accused is charged with the commission of an offence of a heinous crime and it is feared that he is likely to tamper or destroy the evidence or is likely to evade the process of law, issuance of non-bailable warrants should be avoided. 57. The court should try to maintain proper balance between individual liberty and the interest of the public and the State while issuing non-bailable warrant” In the instant case also, the learned Magistrate did not record any reasons as to why he issued NBWs straightaway in the first instance without issuing either summons or bailable warrants. Without recording any reasons, justifying issuance of NBWs in the first instance, the learned Magistrate passed the impugned order and it is unsustainable, in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case referred to above. Therefore, the issuance of NBWs against the petitioners is illegal and it is liable to be quashed. Accordingly, the order of issuing NBWs against the petitioners by the learned Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Chirala in P.R.C. No.46 of 2010 on 06-09-2010 is hereby quashed and the learned Magistrate is directed to issue summons to secure their presence and thereafter they shall be bound over to appear before the Special Court on their executing bonds as required under Section 441 of Criminal Procedure Code. In the result, the Criminal Petition is allowed. ________________ R.KANTHA RAO, J Dated: 20.09.2010 Dsh. [1] (2008) 1 SCC (Crl) 259