AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
This Criminal Petition has been filed by the petitioner/Respondent aggrieved by the endorsement dated 22.06.2026 made by the learned Judge, II Additional Family Court-cum-XV Additional Metropolitan Judge, Kalpataru Complex, Hyderabad (hereinafter referred to as 'the trial Court') in S.R.No.3125 of 2026 in Crl.M.P.No.54 of 2024 in M.C.No.766 of 2022.
Heard Mr. G.Surender, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Mr. Jithender Rao Veeramalla, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent No.1-State.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that respondent Nos.2 and 3 are not necessary parties on the ground that the petitioner is not seeking any relief against them and he is questioning the non-entertaining the petition filed by the petitioner to recall the Non-Bailable Warrant (NBW) issued against him. In view of the same, notice in respect of respondent Nos.2 and 3 is dispensed with.
He further submitted that respondent Nos.2 and 3 have filed M.C.No.766 of 2022 before the trial Court claiming maintenance against the petitioner. Along with the said M.C., respondent Nos.2 and 3 have filed M.P. No.371 of 2022 for grant of ad interim maintenance and the trial Court on 16.07.2024 allowed the said petition in part and directed the petitioner to pay Rs.15,000/- each to respondent Nos.2 and 3. The trial Court issued NBW against the petitioner on 20.03.2025 due to non-payment of the amount to respondent Nos.2 and 3 and non-appearance on that day. Thereafter, the petitioner had approached the trial Court and filed a petition vide S.R.No.3125 of 2026 invoking the provisions of Section 70(2) of Cr.P.C. seeking to recall the NBW issued against him. However, the trial Court returned the said petition on the ground that the outstanding balance was Rs.12 lakhs and that the petitioner had failed to appear before the trial Court.
He also submitted that whether the petitioner is due an amount of Rs.12 lakhs or not, the same has to be decided by the trial Court, especially not in the present petition, which is filed to recall the NBW. The petitioner has explained the reasons for his absence on the previous date. According to the learned counsel, he already paid Rs.6,60,000/-. The trial Court without giving any opportunity to prove that he is not liable to pay Rs.12 lakhs returned the petition on 22.06.2026. Unless this Court issues necessary direction to the trial Court to receive the said petition and decide the same on merits, the petitioner will be put to great hardship.
Learned Additional Public Prosecutor fairly submitted that the learned trial Court ought to have decide the said petition in accordance with law, on the other hand, returned the said petition and the same is contrary to law.
Having considered the rival submissions made by the respective parties and after perusal of the material available on record, it reveals that the trial Court on 20.03.2025 issued NBW against the petitioner for his non-appearance. The record further reveals that the petitioner filed a petition vide S.R. No.3125 of 2026 on 22.06.2026 to recall the NBW issued against him. Learned counsel for the petitioner filed a copy of the said petition, which contains the endorsement made by the trial Court vide USR No.85665 of 2026 on 21.07.2026. The above said endorsement reveals that the trial Court returned the petition filed by the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner is due an amount of Rs.12 lakhs and he failed to appear before the trial Court.
It is relevant to mention that whether the petitioner is entitled to recall the NBW issued against him on 20.03.2025 or not, the same has to be adjudicated and decided by the trial Court, on the other hand, returned the petition on the ground of non-payment of outstanding amount of Rs.12 lakhs and he failed to appear before the trial Court on that day. Hence, this Court is of the considered view that the trial Court ought to have entertained the said petition and decide the same in accordance with law.
Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, the petitioner is directed to resubmit the petition and on such petition, the trial Court is directed to consider the same and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of two (2) days from the date of presentation of the said petition.
With the above said direction, the Criminal Petition is disposed of.
Miscellaneous applications, pending if any, shall stand closed.