IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2017 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE JOHN MICHAEL CUNHA CRIMINAL PETITION NO.1692 OF 2017 BETWEEN:
SRI. SANTHOSH. N.S SON OF SRINIVAS MURTHY AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS RESIDING AT NO 290, 2ND H MAIN ROAD, 3RD STAGE, 3rd BLOCK, WEST OF CHORD ROAD, BASAVESHWARANAGAR BENGALURU- 560009 PRESENTLY EMPLOYED IN INFOSYS ON DEPUTATION WORKING AT CONNECTICUT, EAST COAST UNITED STATES OF AMERICA (By Sri: TOMY SEBASTIAN, SR. COUNSEL FOR Smt : RENY SEBASTIAN, ADVOCATE.) AND STATE OF KARNATAKA BY BASAVESHWARA NAGAR POLICE STATION BENGALURU CITY-560079 REPRESENTED BY SPECIAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR ... PETITIONER HIGH COURT BUILDING BENGALURU-01 (By Sri: VIJAYAKUMAR MAJAGE, ADDL. SPP) ... RESPONDENT THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482 CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 02.02.2017 ISSUING NBW AGAINST THE ACCUSED IN C.C.NO.15495/2016 ON THE FILE OF V ACMM, BANGALORE, AND ISSUE APPROPRIATE DIRECTIONS.
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
O R D E R Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Addl. SPP.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner points out the infirmities committed by the lower court in issuing non-bailable warrant to the petitioner. Learned counsel points out that on 15.6.2016, the learned Magistrate issued non-bailable warrants to all the accused. Thereafter, without ascertaining the execution of the warrants, learned Magistrate himself issued summons to the accused. On the heels of it, without ensuring the service of summons, learned Magistrate has proceeded to issue non-bailable warrant to the accused.
3. Learned counsel further submits that the order issued by the lower court has caused hardship to the petitioner especially in view of the fact that he left for America on 4.3.2016 and on the next day, warrant came to be issued against him. Had the summons been issued, he would have appeared before the court. Further, learned counsel submits that the accused has no intention whatsoever from keeping away from the court and he is on his way to return to India and he would appear before the court on the next date of hearing. Learned counsel refers to the decision of this court in the case of R.BABU SHANKAR vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA reported in 2004 CRI.L.J. 3214, wherein this court has observed that, “Though in warrant cases, a court is empowered to issue in the first instance a warrant for securing the presence of the accused, it is desirable that the court may at the first instance issue summons for the appearance of the accused and may issue a warrant either baiable or non-bailable in case it is satisfied that despite efforts by the police, the accused could not be traced. It may also issue warrant of arrest, if it is satisfied on the description of the accused that he has absconded and may not obey the summons.”
4. The observation made in the above decision squarely applies to the facts of this case. As the petitioner himself has undertaken to appear before the Court on the next date of hearing and the Trial Court has not ensured about the service of summons on the petitioner, in the interest of justice, the petition deserves to be allowed. Hence, the following order:-
Criminal petition is allowed. The non-bailable warrant issued by the Trial Court against the petitioner in C.C.No.15495/2016 is recalled. The petitioner is directed to appear before the Court on the next date of hearing.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that as the petitioner will be arriving at Bengaluru today and if the non- bailable warrant is executed against the petitioner, the order passed by this court would become infructuous.
In view of the said submission, learned Addl. SPP is directed to intimate the concerned police immediately regarding the order passed by this Court recalling the non-bailable warrant issued to the petitioner. Office is also directed to communicate the order to the Trial Court by fax.
Sd/- JUDGE Bss.