This Criminal Original Petition has been filed seeking a direction to the first respondent police to execute the Non-Bailable Warrant issued as against the Petitioner/Accused.
2.This Court in an earlier occasion had elaborately dealt with the issue as to whether the High Court, exercising its inhereint powers under
Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, is empowered to quash or recall a Non-bailable Warrant when an alternate remedy under
Section 70 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure empowers cancellation of the warrant by the court that had issued the warrant.
3. After analysing the principles laid down in the various decisions of the Honourable Supreme Court and our High Court in detail, this Court in the order dated 07.09.2017 in Crl.O.P.No.13276 of 2017 etc., batch, has held as follows:
18.It is also brought to my notice that apart from various other reasons for the long pendency of cases before the trial Courts, the non execution of Non Bailable Warrant is one among the reasons. This fact is reiterated through the last data collected by the NCRB. In most of these pending cases, it is seen that whenever a Non Bailable warrant is kept pending execution, the usual practice among many of the Court is to adjourn the case on the ground that Non Bailable Warrant is pending.
19.In heinous crimes, where there is deliberate and continuous non appearance of the accused, the trial Court may proclaim him as person absconding under
Section 82 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
20.Thus, under
Section 82 of Cr.P.C., there can be no impediment on the part of the trial Court to pronounce him as a proclaimed offender, instead of keeping the matter pending indefinitely for the purpose of having the warrant executed. Hence, the existence of the fourth category of cases cannot be a ground to preclude the High Court to do justice in the first three categories particularly, when they constitute a major portion of the pending cases in the State of Tamil Nadu, in which, Non Bailable Warrants are pending execution.
21.To sum up the findings rendered by me, it is reiterated that the issuance of Bailable Warrant or Non Bailable Warrant should be exercised with extreme caution and in the rarest of cases, bearing in mind that the pendency of Non Bailable Warrant is one of the major factors for the long pendency of cases before the trial Court. The trial Court shall also scrupulously follow the guidelines imposed in Inder Mohan Gowsami's case (supra) as well as the observations made in the present case while issuing Non Bailable Warrants or recalling the Non Bailable Warrants.
4. In the present case though the Non-bailable warrant was issued on 07.06.2017, it has been kept pending without execution till date. In view of the observations made in the earlier order extracted above, it would be appropriate to re-call the warrant issued by the Trial Court.
5. Hence, this Criminal Original Petition stands allowed. The Non-Bailable warrant issued on 07.06.2017 is recalled. Consequently, the petitioner/accused is directed to appear before the learned District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate, Kodumudi in connection with S.T.C.No.245 of 2016 within one week from the date of receipt of this order and on subsequent hearing dates without fail.
14.09.2017 Index:Yes ak To
1. The District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate, Kodumudi
2. The Inspector of Police, Kodumudi Police Station, Kodumudi, Erode District.
3.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.
M.S.RAMESH.J, ak Crl.O.P.No.17784 of 2017 14.09.2017 Crl.O.P.No.17784 of 2017 M.S.RAMESH. J., Today, this Criminal Original Petition is listed under the caption 'for being mentioned' at the instance of the learned counsel for the petitioner.
2. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that an error has occurred in the earlier order of this Court dated 14.09.2017. The same is rectified and accordingly, the following order is passed to execute the warrant.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that accused is employed as Assistant Commissioner of Armed Reserve Police, Chennai and he is very much available.
4. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor seeks further time to execute the warrant. Under such circumstances, the first respondent is directed to execute the bailable warrant dated 07.06.2017 in S.T.C.No.245 of 2016 on the file of the learned M.S.RAMESH. J., dh District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Kodumudi, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
The Criminal Original Petition stands allowed, in the above terms.
13.12.2017 dh Registry to Note:
1.Issue order copy on 18.12.2017
2.The copy of this order shall be marked to the District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Kodumudi Crl.O.P.No.17784 of 2017