THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.S.NARAYANA Criminal Petition No.10480 of 2009 Date : 11-3-2010 Between : Thalla Venkata Raja Reddy .. Petitioner And The State of A.P. Represented by Pubic Prosecutor, High Court of A.P. Hyderabad .. Respondent THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.S.NARAYANA Criminal Petition No.10480 of 2009 ORDER: 1. Heard Sri Suresh Kumar Reddy Kalava, the learned Counsel representing the petitioner/accused and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor representing the respondent. 2. This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code (hereinafter in short referred to as “Code” for the purpose of convenience) praying for quashing of the proceedings dated 12-10-2007 in C.C.No.372/2007 on the file of II Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Madanapalle, arising out of Cr.No.88/2006 of Madanapalle Town Police Station, Madanapalle, Chittoor District and to pass such other suitable orders. 3. The main grievance of the petitioner is that in a case of this nature, straight-away issuing non-bailable warrant cannot be sustained. Strong reliance was placed on the decision of the Apex Court in Inder Mohan Goswami and another Vs. State of Uttaranchal and others [1]. 4. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would contend that in the facts and circumstances of the case, since the learned Magistrate exercised the discretion in issuing non-bailable warrant, this is not a fit matter to interfere under Section 482 of the Code. 5. The petitioner is A-1 in C.C.No.372/2007 on the file of II Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Madanapalle. Originally, a private complaint had been filed against the petitioner and five others for an offence punishable under Sections 379, 452, 427 and 323 IPC. The learned Magistrate referred the case to police for investigation and the same was registered in Cr.No.88/2006 of Madanapalle Town Police Station, Madanapalle and after investigation the police filed the charge sheet. Further it is stated that by order dated 12-10-2007, the learned Magistrate took cognizance for the offences under Sections 120B, 452, 323 427 r/w. Section 34 IPC and issued non-bailable warrant against the petitioner. Further it is stated that the learned Magistrate had not followed the guidelines issued by the Apex Court in the decision referred (1) supra for issuing the warrant against him. 6. In the decision referred (1) supra, the Apex Court at para-55 observed : “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 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.” 7. In the light of the same, the non-bailable warrant issued by the learned II Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate against the petitioner is hereby recalled and liberty is given to the learned Magistrate to follow the procedure as specified by the Apex Court in the decision referred (1) supra. 8. The Criminal Petition is accordingly allowed to the extent indicated above. _____________________ Justice P.S.Narayana Date : 11-3-2010 AM [1] (2008) 1 S.C.C. (Crl) 259