HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.BHAVANI PRASAD CRIMINAL PETITION No.6324 of 2009 DATED:17.08.2009 Between: Thalluru Venkateswarlu Naidu .. Petitioner And The State of Andhra Pradesh rep., by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad through Sub Divisional Police Officer, Kavali and another .. Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.BHAVANI PRASAD CRIMINAL PETITION No.6324 of 2009 ORDER: Heard Sri T.C.Krishnan, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri A.Ramesh, learned counsel representing the learned Public Prosecutor for the first respondent. No notice is being ordered to the second respondent as the matter is being disposed of at the stage of admission and as the order being passed does not even remotely touch any right or interest of the second respondent. The petitioner is facing prosecution in S.C.No.49 of 2008 on the file of the V Additional District and Sessions Judge-cum-special Judge for Trial of Cases under the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and he was accused of abusing one Lati Chennakesavulu in the name of his caste in public view and to have also assaulted him. He was arrested during investigation and was released on bail by the Special Court. He claims that he is innocent of any offences and that the ingredients of the alleged offences are not made out by the charge sheet or the material in support of the same. He also claims to be a respectable citizen. But, such claims are questions of fact, which have to be gone into, on merits, by the trial Court and not by this Court by making any deep fact finding enquiry in the summary proceedings. It cannot be said that ex facie, there is no scope for attributing any culpable conduct to the petitioner if the allegations are true and therefore, the case has to be left to be decided on merits by the trial Court without any undue interference on questions of fact by this Court in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction, which is available only in the rarest of rare cases. The petitioner further claims that due to severe illness, he was unable to attend the Court on 13.02.2009, while he attended the Court regularly till the earlier date of hearing on 09.01.2009. The petitioner believed that his counsel will file a petition for his absence under Section 317 Cr.P.C. on that date of hearing, but it was only later he came to know that in the absence of any such request, non-bailable warrant was issued against him. Learned counsel for the petitioner relied on Inder Mohan Goswami and another v. State of Uttaranchal and others[1] prescribing the guidelines on issuance of non-bailable warrants and requested that even if the request for quashing the proceedings is not considered, the petitioner may be given an opportunity to appear before the trial Court uninfluenced by any fear of detention due to pendency of the non-bailable warrant against him. If the petitioner is ready to submit to the judicial process, he can be afforded a reasonable opportunity by the intervention of this Court in the interests of justice without otherwise interfereing with the further proceedings in the sessions case. Accordingly, while dismissing the Criminal Petition, the petitioner is permitted to appear before the trial Court within 15 days from today and submit himself to the continuance of the proceedings in S.C.No.49 of 2008 by the trial Court in accordance with law. Till then, the non-bailable warrant issued against him shall be kept in abeyance, and on such appearance before the trial Court, such non-bailable warrant shall stand recalled. In case of default by the petitioner in such appearance, non-bailable warrant shall be executed. ___________________ G. BHAVANI PRASAD, J 17th August 2009 KH [1] (2007) 12 Supreme Court Cases I