Madras High Court
Chandran vs State Rep.By, The Inspector Of Police, on 29 April, 2026
Author: A.D.Jagadish Chandira
Bench: A.D.Jagadish Chandira
Crl.R.C.No.866 of 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 29.04.2026
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA
Crl.R.C.No.866 of 2026
Chandran ...Petitioner
Vs.
State rep. by,
The Inspector of Police,
Periyanaickenpalayam Police Station,
Coimbatore. ...Respondent
Criminal revision case filed under Section 438 r/w. 442 of BNSS,
seeking to set aside the order dated 24.03.2026 made in Crl.M.P.No.2696
of 2026 in C.C.No.2215 of 2025 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate
Court No.I, Coimbatore and consequently, recall the non-bailable warrant
in C.C.No.2215 of 2025 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate Court No.I
Coimbatore.
For Petitioner : Mrs.AL.Gandhimathi, Senior Counsel
for Mr.L.Palani Muthu
For Respondent : Mr.S.Udayakumar, GA(Crl. Side)
ORDER
This Criminal revision case has been filed seeking quashment of the order dated 24.03.2026 made in Crl.M.P.No.2696 of 2026 in 1/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.No.866 of 2026 C.C.No.2215 of 2025 by the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Coimbatore and to consequently, recall the non-bailable warrant dated 03.03.2026 issued in C.C.No.2215 of 2025 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate Court No.I, Coimbatore.
2. The brief facts necessary for the disposal of the case are as follows:-
The petitioner is an accused facing trial for the offences under Sections 468, 471 r/w. 120B of IPC in C.C.No.2215 of 2025 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate Court No.I, Coimbatore, arising out of the FIR in Crime No.820 of 2010. While so, on 03.03.2026, as the petitioner did not appear before the trial court, Non-Bailable Warrant was issued against him on the very same day. Immediately thereafter, the petitioner filed a petition under Section 72(2) of BNSS in Crl.M.P.No.2696 of 2026 in C.C.No.2215 of 2025 through his counsel seeking to recall the Non- Bailable warrant issued against him and the trial court, vide order dated 24.03.2026, dismissed the said petition. Challenging the same, the petitioner has come up with this revision.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner made the following submissions:-
2/10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.No.866 of 2026 3.1 Initially, the final report was filed before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.V, Coimbatore in C.C.No.1461 of 2019, where the petitioner had appeared regularly. Subsequently, on administrative grounds, the case was transferred to the file of the Judicial Magistrate Court No. I, Coimbatore, and renumbered as C.C.No.2215 of 2025.
3.2 Owing to his indisposition, the petitioner was residing at his daughter’s residence in Banglore. While so, as the summons was served by way of affixture at the residence of the petitioner's brother, the petitioner was not put on proper notice regarding the hearing date, and hence, he was not able to appear before the trial court on 03.03.2026 and the non-appearance on the part of the petitioner before the trial court is neither willful nor wanton.
3.3 Immediately after coming to know about the issuance of Non-
Bailable Warrant, the petitioner filed a recall petition. However, the trial court, vide impugned order dated 24.03.2026, dismissed the said petition on the ground that the petitioner did not appear in person at the time of filing of the recall petition, which is not sustainable, since his non appearance is only due to his continued ill health and apprehension of arrest. The petitioner has no intention to protract the proceedings or evade the process of law.
3/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.No.866 of 2026 3.4 When the petitioner is ready to co-operate for the speedy disposal of the case and undertakes to appear before the Trial Court as and when required, he cannot be asked to be present in Court as a condition precedent to recall the NBW. Hence, the impugned dismissal order may be set aside.
4. Per contra, the learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) appearing for the respondent submitted that the occurrence is of the year 2010, for which, initially, the final report was filed before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.V, Coimbatore in C.C.No.1461 of 2019 and the same was subsequently transferred to the file of the Judicial Magistrate Court No.I, Coimbatore and re-numbered as C.C.No.2215 of 2025. Further, though it is the claim of the petitioner that he was not put on proper notice of the hearing date as the summons was served at his Ooty address, it is pertinent to note that A2 and A3, who are none other than the brothers of the petitioner, appeared before the trial court on the scheduled date. Given their appearance and the relationship with the petitioner, the petitioner’s assertion that he was entirely unaware of the hearing date is untenable and cannot be accepted. He also submitted that the conduct of the petitioner would clearly indicate the tactic used by him 4/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.No.866 of 2026 to drag on the proceedings. Hence, the trial court, after careful consideration of all the above said facts, issued NBW for his appearance and also, dismissed the subsequent recall petition filed by the petitioner, which cannot be said to be erroneous. Accordingly, he prayed for dismissal of this revision.
5. Heard both sides and perused the materials available on record.
6. Admittedly, the petitioner had been appearing before the trial Court when the case was pending in C.C.No.1461 of 2019 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate Court No.V, Coimbatore. It is also not in dispute that subsequently, the case was transferred on administrative grounds and re-numbered as C.C.No.2215 of 2025 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate Court No.I, Coimbatore.
7. Though the respondent would contend that the petitioner cannot plead ignorance of the hearing date, since A2 and A3, who are the brothers of the petitioner appeared before the trial court, this Court is of the considered view that the absence of the petitioner, who is a sexagenarian, on a single hearing date, particularly in view of the 5/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.No.866 of 2026 explanation offered regarding his ill health and relocation of his residence to Bangalore, cannot be construed as deliberate or intentional so as to deny him an opportunity to participate in the trial.
8. At this juncture, it is useful to refer to paragraphs 7 to 9 of the decision of this Court in S.Sundar Vs. State rep by the Inspector of Police, Vigilance & Anti Corruption1, which are extracted below:
“7. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that in this branch of law, there is march of law. Earlier, there used to be not entertaining such recall petitions when the accused was not present in the court. This conception of compulsion of the presence of accused has been departed because of change in the judicial thinking. The fact that the accused, who is stated to have eluded has since engaged a counsel and wanted to participate in the criminal proceedings had effect on the courts.
8. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that without insisting upon the presence of the accused, the court can recall NBW. I hasten to add that the courts can impose certain conditions, but it should not be harsh or conditions should not be to terrorise the accused. In support of his said view, the learned counsel would cite the following decisions:
(i) Valampuri John vs. Peter James [1997(2) MWN (CR.) 196
(ii) Valiullaz Sherif vs. State by Inspector of Police, AWPS, Nellore [2000(3) MWN 28
(iii) Sirugudugu Naga Venkata Durgakumari vs. Sirugudu Jhansilakshmi [(2007) 2 MLJ (Crl) 1668]
(iv) Inder Mohan Goswami and another vs. State of Uttaranchal and Others [(2007) 12 SCC 1].
9. Courts must protect the rights of the accused. But, at the same time, the court has to see that the offenders are prosecuted. This legal philosophy could be seen as a current judicial thing [SANJAY CHANDRA VS.C.B.I [2012(1)SCC 40] also known as 2G scam case. 1 Crl.O.P.No.4514 of 2016 decided on 02.03.2016 6/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.No.866 of 2026 While striking a balance between these two extremes, cause of justice cannot be compromised. Now the fear of the petitioner is that as and when he shows his face, there is possibility of he being sent to jail. When he files recall petition, it is an indication that he will participate in the court proceedings. At the same time, there is fear of psychosis on the prosecution that the accused may put bottle necks in the administration of criminal justice. Now the law is very clear. Accused cannot be asked to present in court as a condition precedent to recall the NBW.” (emphasis supplied by this Court)
9. It is pertinent to note that the object of issuing a Non- Bailable Warrant is only to secure the presence of the accused before the Court and not to punish him for his absence and when he files a recall petition, it is an indication that he is ready to participate in the Court proceedings and he cannot be asked to be present in Court as a condition precedent to recall the NBW.
10. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and in order to afford an opportunity to the petitioner to participate in the trial, this Court is inclined to interfere with the impugned order.
11. For the reasons aforesaid, the order dated 24.03.2026 passed in Crl.M.P.No.2696 of 2026 in C.C.No.2215 of 2025 by the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Coimbatore, is set aside. The petitioner is directed to appear before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Coimbatore, within two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this 7/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.No.866 of 2026 order and file a recall petition along with an affidavit undertaking to co- operate for the early disposal of the case in C.C.No.2215 of 2025. Upon such appearance and the filing of a petition, the trial court shall consider the said recall petition and pass appropriate orders on the same day.
12. It is made clear that the petitioner shall thereafter appear before the trial Court as and when required without fail and co-operate for the expeditious disposal of the case in C.C.No.2215 of 2025.
13. With the above directions and observation, this criminal revision case stands allowed.
29.04.2026 skt NCC : Yes/No 8/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.No.866 of 2026 To:
1. The Judicial Magistrate No.I, Coimbatore.
2. The Inspector of Police, Periyanaickenpalayam Police Station, Coimbatore.
3. The Public Prosecutor, Madras High Court, Chennai.
9/10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.No.866 of 2026 A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA, J.
skt Crl.R.C.No.866 of 2026 29.04.2026 10/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis