ARIGE VENKATARAMAIAH Vs. STATE OF TELANGANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this Criminal Petition, the petitioner is seeking quashing of the Docket Order dt.5/12/2023 in Crl.M.P.No.1114 of 2023 in C.C.No.4637 of 2022 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Special (Mobile) Court under PCR Act, Ranga Reddy-cum-IV Additional Metropolitan Magistrate-cum-IV Additional Junior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar (hereinafter referred to as 'the trial Court').

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in C.C.No.4637 of 2022, the petitioner/accused had engaged a counsel and when the matter came up for hearing on 6/9/2023, the trial Court has observed that the accused was called absent and there was no representation on behalf of the accused and therefore, the Court had issued an NBW (NonBailable Warrant) against the accused and posted the matter for hearing on 5/10/2023. It is stated that again on 5/10/2023, the accused was called absent and that no representation was made on his behalf and therefore, an NBW was issued against the accused. The contention of the petitioner/accused is that he was not aware of the dates of hearing as his counsel had not informed him about the same and on coming to know about the NBW, he had filed an application in Crl.M.P.No.1114 of 2023 for recall of the NBW. It is submitted that the petitioner had also relied upon a decision of the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court in the case of R.Sundar Vs. The Sub Inspector of Police, Lalgudi Police Station, Lalgudi, Lalgudi Taluk, Trichy District(Crl.R.C.(MD) No.1105 of 2023 and Crl.M.P.(MD) No.14125 of 2023 dt.26/10/2023). He submitted that the petitioner had also submitted a medical certificate to substantiate his inability to appear before the Court on the dates fixed for hearing. It is submitted that the trial Court without considering the said evidence and without any reason, had kept the application for recall of NBW pending for more than a week and thereafter, has dismissed the said application on 5/12/2023 only on the ground that the accused was not present during the course of the proceedings when his application for recall of NBW was being considered.

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that without any reasonable cause, the petitioner has been punished and he also alleged that on the guise of the NBW, the petitioner was picked up by the police and the accused was made to pay some amount to the complainant through digital mode. He therefore seeks recall of the NBW pending against the petitioner/accused and also for suitable action for the loss suffered by the petitioner.