Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, Sections 70, 72 & 482 – Non-bailable warrant – Cancellation / recall of – Maintainability of petition invoking inherent jurisdiction u/s. 482 – Principles governing recall of non-bailable warrant as laid down in P.A. Saleem (DB) – Non-bailable warrant issued u/s. 70 remains in force until executed or cancelled by Court issuing same – Remedy of accused is to approach very same Court with petition for recall – Refusal to cancel warrant by such Court, a final order amenable to revision u/s. 397 or 401, Cr.P.C. – Inherent jurisdiction u/s. 482 cannot be invoked for recall of warrant – Inherent power not a substitute for statutory remedies nor can be employed to short-cut procedural hierarchy envisaged by law – Accused, who voluntarily appears before Trial Court and seeks recall, not to be mechanically remanded – Recall application must be considered and disposed of forthwith without delay – Speedy disposal, a constitutional mandate flowing from Article 21.
This petition has been filed by the petitioner / accused to recall the non-bailable warrant issued against him. The case of the petitioner is that the respondent filed the complaint u/s. 138 r/w 142 of NI Act before the Magistrate Court and the petitioner was convicted by the said Court and the petitioner filed an appeal before the District Court and the non-bailable warrant was issued against the petitioner for his non-appearance, hence the petitioner filed the present petition to recall the said warrant.
After considering the order passed in P.A.Saleem Vs. State of Madras (1994 SCC Online Mad 860), the Hon’ble High Court observed that the Court has categorically held that a warrant issued u/s. 70 of Cr.P.C. remains in force until it is executed or cancelled by the Court which issued it, and that the proper and primary remedy of an aggrieved accused is to approach that very Court with an application for cancellation or recall and a refusal to cancel a warrant constitutes a final order amenable to revision u/s. 397 or 401 of Cr.P.C., and that the inherent jurisdiction u/s. 482 of Cr.P.C. cannot be invoked for a simpliciter recall of a warrant and the Trial Courts must act with promptitude and sensitivity and an accused who voluntarily appears and seeks recall of a warrant is not to be mechanically remanded; rather, the application must be considered forthwith and orders passed without delay and this approach strikes a constitutionally permissible balance between individual liberty and the collective interest in the expeditious administration of criminal justice and the speedy disposal of criminal cases is not merely an administrative objective but a constitutional mandate flowing from Article 21; endless interlocutory interventions, particularly in matters relating to warrants, have the potential to derail trials, frustrate victims, and erode public confidence in the justice delivery system. Hence, in the present case, the petitioner has to file a recall petition before the concerned Court and the statutory framework expressly empowers those Courts to consider such applications and to pass appropriate orders.
In the result, this petition is disposed of with conditions
R.Raman Vs. R.Balaji Ram - Crl. O.P.(MD) No.4045/2026 - Date of Judgment: 24.02.2026 - THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE L.VICTORIA GOWRI
Author’s Note
27. The next contention of the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Respondent is that this Petition is not maintainable under Section 482, Cr.P.C., since the order under challenge is a final order. In my considered opinion, the impugned order cannot be termed either as a final order or as an intermediate order as clarified in Madhu Limayee v. State of Maharashtra, 1977 (4) SCC 551. It is only an Interlocutory Order made in a Miscellaneous Petition and therefore, no revision lies against the same. Thus, I hold that the present Petition is very much maintainable [STATE — Appellant vs. SUBASH CHANDRA KAPOOR — Respondent – ( Before : S. Nagamuthu, J.) – Crl. O.P. No. 9983 of 2012 – Decided on : 27-04-2012].
In the opinion of this Court, issuance of Non-Bailable Warrant is not a final order, but, it is only an interlocutory order and it is always open to the petitioner to surrender before the trial Court and pray for its recall. It is to be noted that the reason given in the petition filed under Section 317 Cr.P.C. before the trial Court extracted above is different from the one that is proffered now. Such dilatory tactics to prolong a corruption trial, especially when there is a direction by this Court to complete the trial within six months, has to be deprecated. In this case, when the trial Judge had specifically directed the petitioner to appear on 14.10.2020, his conduct in filing a petition under Section 317 Cr.P.C in a printed format simply saying that he is unwell shows that he has least respect for the Court. Information provided by the trial Court discloses that notice was issued to the sureties and they have also paid the bond amount[1].
[1] J.Mugundan vs. The State rep. by The Inspector of Police Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Villupuram (Crime No.11 of 2017) – 20.11.2020.
