Sri Mohd Akram Siddiqui vs The State Of Telangana & Anr.

This criminal petition is filed aggrieved by the docket order dated 24.08.2024 passed by the XV Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hyderabad (for short 'the Trial Court') in C.C.No.8124 of 2024, wherein, the trial Court issued NBWs against the petitioner-accused No.3.

Heard Mr. Mohammad Adnan, learned counsel for petitioner and Mr. Jithender Rao Veeramalla, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent No.1.

Notice in respect of respondent No.2 is dispensed with, solely on the ground that the petitioner is not seeking any relief, much less any effective relief against respondent No.2. The petitioner is only seeking recall of the NBW issued against him.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is accused No.3 in C.C.No.8124 of 2024, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 406 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short 'IPC') and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. In the said case, even in the absence of effective service of summons, the learned trial Court straight away issued NBWs and the same is contrary to law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Satender Kumar Antil v. Central Bureau of Investigation and Other^{11.(2022) 10 SCC 51}. He further submits that accused No.5 had approached this Court by filing Crl.P.No.15693 of 2025, aggrieved by the very same docket order passed by the trial Court on 24.08.2024. The said criminal petition was disposed of on 28.11.2025 and the petitioner is also entitled for the very same relief.

Perused the record. The recitals of charge sheet point out that the complaint was lodged by the defacto complainant against accused Nos.1 to 5 and the FIR was registered under Sections 498-A , 406 and 506 of IPC and Sections 3 & 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. After conducting investigation, the charge sheet was laid by praying the Court to issue NBW against accused Nos.3 & 5 stating that they have been absconding from the date of registration of FIR. The Trial Court has taken the case on file and on 24.08.2024 has passed the following impugned docket order:-

The contention of the petitioner is that on the first date of hearing, the Trial Court could not have been issued the Non-Bailable Warrant against the petitioner herein and that he is a law abiding citizen and would have appeared on issuance of summons. The contention of the petitioner’s counsel is that the orders dated 24.08.2024 are against the principle laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Satender Kumar Antil Vs.Central Bureau of Investigation. The concerned officer ought to have assigned reasons for issuance of NBW which is not done in this case. But it is borne out by record that the petitioner has been absconding ever since the registration of FIR. Thus, in the facts and circumstances of the case, it is deemed appropriate to direct the petitioner/accused No.3 to appear before the Trial Court as and when he arrives in India and on his appearance, he shall file an appropriate application before the Trial Court to recall NBW and the Trial Court shall dispose of the same on the same day on its own merits without being influenced by any of the observations made by this Court in this order.

With the above observation, the Criminal Petition is disposed of accordingly.

Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.