Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Adidela Revanth vs The State Through The Station House ... on 13 July, 2022
Author: Ninala Jayasurya
Bench: Ninala Jayasurya
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA
CRIMINAL PETITION No.5043 OF 2022
Between:-
Adidela Revanth
... Petitioner/Accused
and
The State of Andhra Pradesh represented by
The S.H.O., Krishnalanka Police Station
... Respondent
Counsel for the petitioner : Mr.Peeta Raman
Counsel for the respondent : The Public Prosecutor
ORDER:
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the respondent.
2. The present Criminal Petition is filed seeking to quash the order dated 18.4.2022 passed in Crl.M.P. No.178 of 2022 in C.C.No.7210 of 2018 on the file of the Court of II Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Vijayawada.
3. The petitioner is the accused in the above referred Calendar Case for the offences punishable under Sections 451, 452, 506, 509, 354(D) of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 66(C), (D) and 67 of the Information Technology Act. As the petitioner was absent on 05.3.2020, Non Bailable Warrant (NBW) was issued against him. An application in Crl.M.P. No.178 of 2022 was filed under Section 70(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, seeking to recall the NBW, inter alia on the premise that the petitioner was studying M.S., at Germany and therefore he could 2 not physically present at the relevant point of time. The learned Magistrate, after considering the matter, was not inclined to recall the NBW.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner, inter alia submits that the petitioner is now in India and he would appear before the learned Magistrate; however, as there is threat of arrest in view of pendency of the NBW, the same may be recalled. He further submits that the order passed by the learned Magistrate is not tenable as the presence of the petitioner for the purpose of recalling the NBW is not required. In this regard, he places reliance on the decision of the erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad reported in M/s.Ramakrishna Agencies vs. State of A.P., 2000 (1) L.S. 78.
5. Considering the submissions made and in the light of the above said decision, the Criminal Petition is allowed, setting aside the order dated 28.6.2022 passed in Crl.M.P. No.178 of 2022 in C.C. No.7210 of 2018 on the file of the Court of II Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Vijayawada. Consequently, NBW issued against the petition is recalled. However, it is made clear that the petitioner shall appear before the Trial Court on the next date of adjournment i.e., on 03.8.2022 and shall cooperate with the trial of the Calendar Case. Miscellaneous applications, pending if any, shall stand closed.
________________________ NINALA JAYASURYA, J July 13, 2022.
vasu