THAMMISETTY VAASU Vs. STATE OF TELANGANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Criminal Petition has been filed aggrieved by the orders dtd. 12/11/2025 passed in C.C.No.9947 of 2024 on the file of XV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad in issuing fresh Non-Bailable Warrant against accused No.3.

(2.) Heard Mr. L. Anand, learned counsel representing Mr. P. Nagendra Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Jithendar Rao Veeramalla, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent No.1. Notice in respect of respondent No.2/de facto complainant is dispensed with on the ground that the petitioner has questioned the NBWs issued by the learned Magistrate.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is an accused No.3 in C.C.No.9947 of 2024 on the file of XV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad, registered for the offence punishable under Sec. 498A, 406, 420, 504, 506, 323, 509 of IPC and Ss. 3 and 4 of DP Act. The learned Magistrate ought to have issued summons before issuing NBW and even after issuance of summons, if the accused failed to appear before the Court, the learned Magistrate is having power to issue Non-Bailable Warrant (for short 'NBW ') against the accused. But, the learned Magistrate without following the said procedure, while taking cognizance for the above said offences, issued NBW against the accused straight away, without issuing summons solely basing upon the final report and the request made by the Investigating Officer and the same is contrary to the law.