Crl.OP(MD)No.21580, 22033, 22630, 21890 and 22808 of 2025

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

DATED : 02.01.2026

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE L.VICTORIA GOWRI

Crl.O.P.(MD).No.21580, 22033,

22630, 21890 and 22808 of 2025

and

Crl.M.P.(MD)Nos.19546 and 19550, of 2025

Crl.O.P.(MD).No.21580 of 2025

Manuvel Mariya Selvam ... Petitioner/Sole Accused

Vs.

1. State of Tamil Nadu,

Rep. by its Inspector of Police,

Boothapandi Police Station,

Kanyakumari District.

.... Respondent

2. Nirmala .... Respondent /Complainant

Prayer : Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 528 of

BNSS, 2023, to direct the District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate,

Boothapandy, to dispose the petition filed u/S.70(2) of Cr.P.C. on the

same day to recall the non bailable warrant issued against the

petitioner/accused in S.T.C.No.80 of 2021 on the file of the District

Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Boothapandy.

For Petitioner: Mr.S.Sivakumar

1/19 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.OP(MD)No.21580, 22033, 22630, 21890 and 22808 of 2025

For R-1 : Mr.Thanga Aravindh.B

Government Advocate (Crl. Side)

Crl.O.P.(MD).No.22033 of 2025

Nirmala Goldwin ... Petitioner

Vs.

1. The State of Tamil Nadu,

Rep. by Inspector of Police,

Rajakkamangalam Police Station,

Kanyakumari District.

2. Philama Antony .... Respondents

Prayer : Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 528 of

BNSS, 2023, to direct the Judicial Magistrate/Fast Track Court,

Nagercoil, to consider the recall petition of the petitioner for NBW to

be filed in C.C.No.1137 of 2012 on the file of the Judicial

Magistrate/Fast Track Court, Nagercoil and to accept his surrender.

For Petitioner: Mr.H.Thayumanaswamy

For R-1 : Mr.M.Sakthi Kumar,

Government Advocate (Crl. Side)

Crl.O.P.(MD).Nos.22630 of 2025

M/s. Tej Ram Dharam Paul Pvt. Ltd.,

Rep. by its Managing Partner

Mr.Manmohan Kumar Puria ... Petitioners / Accused No. 2

2/19 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.OP(MD)No.21580, 22033, 22630, 21890 and 22808 of 2025

Vs.

Food Safety Officer,

Code No. 24-470,

Cumbum Municipality and Union

and Gudalur Municipality,

Food Safety and Drug Administration Department,

Teni District.

.... Respondent /Complainant

Prayer : Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 528 of

BNSS, 2023, to recall the Non-Bailable Warrant dated 30.10.2025

issued in S.T.C.No.354 of 2025 on the file of the learned Judicial

Magistrate Court, Uthamapalayam, Theni District, and direct the

Trial Court to consider and dispose of the petitioner's recall.

For Petitioner: Mr.K.Jayabalan

For Respondent: Mr.M.Sakthi Kumar

Government Advocate (Crl. Side)

Crl.O.P.(MD).Nos.21890 of 2025

Valsala Kumari ... Petitioner / Sole Accused

Vs.

1. The Inspector of Police,

District Crime Records Bureau (DCRB)

Special Team Police for Executing NBI

in N.I. Act Cases,

Kanyakumari District at Nagercoil.

(Investigation Officer)

3/19 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.OP(MD)No.21580, 22033, 22630, 21890 and 22808 of 2025

2. M/s. Sree Gogulam Chit & Finance Co. (P) Ltd.,

Regd Office at Chennai,

Represented by Authorized Agent,

A.Chockalingam,

S/o.Annamalai Pillai,

M/s.Sree Gokulam Chit & Finance

Co (P) Ltd.,

15/99, 1

st

floor, S.U.S.Building,

Palace Road, Thuckalay,

Kanyakumari District. .... Respondent /Complainant

Prayer : Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 528 of

BNSS, 2023, to issue a direction to the Judicial Magistrate Court

No.I, Kuzhithurai to recall the NBW (Non Bailable Warrant) issued in

STC.No.171 of 2016.

For Petitioner: Mr.M.R.Sreenivasan

For R-1 : Mr.M.Sakthi Kumar

Government Advocate (Crl. Side)

Crl.O.P.(MD).Nos.22808 of 2025

Dr.S.Sivasamy ... Petitioner / Accused

Vs.

State Represented by the

Drugs Inspector,

Pudukkottai Range in charge,

O/o. The Drugs Inspector,

1093, Kannadasan Salai,

Rajagopalapuram Post,

Pudukkottai – 622 003.

.... Respondent /Complainant

4/19 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.OP(MD)No.21580, 22033, 22630, 21890 and 22808 of 2025

Prayer : Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 528 of

BNSS, 2023, to direct the learned Judicial Magistrate

Avudaiyarkovil, Pudukkottai District to recall the warrant issued

against the petitioner on 23.07.2024 in connection with the STC.No.

86/2024 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate,

Avudaiyarkovil and considering the warrant recall petition filed by

the petitioner under Section 72(2) BNSS on the same of day of its

filing without physical presence of the petitioner.

For Petitioner: Mr.R.Sevugaraja

For Respondent: Mr.M.Sakthi Kumar

Government Advocate (Crl. Side)

ORDER

Prologue:

The criminal justice system is a delicate balance between the

authority of the State to enforce law and order and the constitutional

obligation to protect individual liberty. While coercive processes such

as warrants are indispensable tools to secure the presence of an

accused and ensure progress of criminal proceedings, they are not

intended to operate as punitive instruments divorced from

procedural safeguards. At the same time, the unchecked invocation

of the inherent jurisdiction of this Court to interdict every warrant

issued by a trial court risks paralysing the trial process itself.

5/19 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.OP(MD)No.21580, 22033, 22630, 21890 and 22808 of 2025

2. The enactment of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita,

2023, reinforces a justice-oriented, victim-centric and citizen-

responsive framework, while preserving the cardinal guarantee of a

fair and speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution. Courts at

all levels are therefore enjoined to ensure that criminal proceedings

move forward expeditiously, without either trivialising liberty or

undermining the authority of the learned Trial Court. It is against

this constitutional and statutory backdrop that the present batch of

petitions, all arising from the issuance of Non-Bailable Warrants, fall

for consideration.

Crl.O.P.(MD) No.21580 of 2025:

3. Gist of the Case:

The petitioner, an accused in a prosecution under Section 138

of the Negotiable Instruments Act in S.T.C. No.80 of 2021, challenges

the issuance of a Non-Bailable Warrant by the learned Trial Court.

Her absence was attributed to a documented medical condition

involving knee surgery and post-operative treatment. The warrant

was issued following dismissal of her petition to condone absence,

prompting apprehension of arrest.

6/19 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.OP(MD)No.21580, 22033, 22630, 21890 and 22808 of 2025

4. Relief Sought:

A direction to the learned District Munsif-cum-Judicial

Magistrate, Boothapandi, to consider and dispose of the petitioner’s

application under Section 70(2) Cr.P.C., 1973, for recall of the NBW

on the same day of filing, without insisting on personal appearance.

Crl.O.P.(MD) No.22630 of 2025:

5. Gist of the Case:

The petitioner, a Delhi-based tobacco manufacturing company

arrayed as Accused No.2 under the Food Safety and Standards Act,

2006, challenges the issuance of a Non-Bailable Warrant in S.T.C.

No.354 of 2025. The prosecution alleges that tobacco products were

found in a shop in Tamil Nadu and treated as “unsafe food”. The

petitioner contends that tobacco products are governed by COTPA,

2003, that there is no nexus between it and the alleged stock, and

that the NBW was issued without recording satisfaction of

abscondence and in violation of procedures governing execution

outside the State.

7/19 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.OP(MD)No.21580, 22033, 22630, 21890 and 22808 of 2025

6. Relief Sought:

Recall of the NBW dated 30.10.2025, a direction to consider

the recall petition without insisting on surrender, permission to

appear through counsel or video conference, dispensation of

personal appearance, and stay of further proceedings.

Crl.O.P.(MD) No.22033 of 2025:

7. Gist of the Case:

The petitioner is an accused in a cheque dishonour case

originally instituted in 2004 and later transferred and renumbered

as C.C. No.1137 of 2012. She claims lack of knowledge of the

transfer and non-receipt of summons, resulting in issuance of an

NBW on 24.09.2025. The petitioner disputes the transaction and

cites serious medical ailments.

8. Relief Sought:

A direction to the learned Trial Court to consider the

petitioner’s surrender and recall petition for the NBW on the same

day and pass appropriate orders.

8/19 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.OP(MD)No.21580, 22033, 22630, 21890 and 22808 of 2025

Crl.O.P.(MD) No.22808 of 2025:

9. Gist of the Case:

The petitioner, an elderly medical practitioner aged over 75

years, faces prosecution under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act arising

from an inspection in 2011. Though his personal appearance had

earlier been dispensed with, the case remained dormant for over a

decade. Upon transfer and renumbering in 2024, an NBW was

issued allegedly without proper service of summons.

10. Relief Sought:

Recall of the NBW dated 23.07.2024 and a direction to

consider the petitioner’s application under Section 72(2) BNSS,

2023, on the same day, without insisting on personal appearance.

Crl.O.P.(MD) No.21890 of 2025:

11. Gist of the Case:

The petitioner, a 60-year-old senior citizen, is an accused in

S.T.C. No.171 of 2016 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate Court

(earlier Padmanabhapuram, later transferred to Judicial Magistrate

Court No.I, Kuzhithurai) for an offence under Section 138 of the

9/19 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.OP(MD)No.21580, 22033, 22630, 21890 and 22808 of 2025

Negotiable Instruments Act. The prosecution arises out of a chit

transaction with the second respondent chit company, wherein a

blank cheque allegedly obtained as security was later misused to file

the cheque dishonour complaint.

12. During the pendency of an earlier quash petition, this

Court had dispensed with the petitioner’s personal appearance,

except when specifically insisted upon by the trial Court. After

dismissal of the quash petition, the petitioner engaged counsel and

was under the bona fide impression that her case was being properly

followed. Subsequently, due to transfer of the case and non-

appearance allegedly without her knowledge, a bailable warrant was

issued and later converted into a non-bailable warrant. The

petitioner contends that her absence was neither wilful nor

deliberate but was caused by the failure of her erstwhile counsel to

inform her about the proceedings and the issuance of the bailable

warrant. Apprehending arrest pursuant to the non-bailable warrant,

and citing her age and medical ailments, she has approached this

Court.

10/19 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.OP(MD)No.21580, 22033, 22630, 21890 and 22808 of 2025

13. Relief Sought:

The petitioner seeks a direction under Section 528 of the

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, to the learned Judicial

Magistrate Court No.I, Kuzhithurai, to recall the Non-Bailable

Warrant issued against her in S.T.C. No.171 of 2016, and to pass

such further or other orders as may be necessary to secure the ends

of justice.

Submissions:

14. The learned counsels for the petitioners relying upon the

judgment of this court in Crl.O.P.No.6472 of 2025 dated 07.03.2025,

Crl.O.P.No.4514 of 2016 dated 02.03.2016 and similar orders,

submitted that, this Court has appreciated similar cases and had

allowed the same by directing the petitioner to appear before the

learned Trial Court and file a petition under section 72(2) of BNSS,

2023, to recall NBW already issued against him and on filing the

same the learned Trial Court has further been directed to consider

the same on its own merits in accordance with law on the same day,

making it clear that the disposal of the case in that manner by this

Court does not amount to consider the recall petition favourably.

11/19 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.OP(MD)No.21580, 22033, 22630, 21890 and 22808 of 2025

Citing the same, the learned counsel for the petitioner sought for a

similar order seeking disposition of the case in a similar manner.

15. Per contra the learned Government Advocate categorically

contended that this Court cannot invoke section 482/528 Cr.P.C.,

1973 /BNSS, 2023, in warrant recall matters and insisted that the

petitioner’s remedy lies with the learned Trial Court and on rejection

by the learned Trial Court, before revision jurisdiction either before

the Sessions Court or this Court. He further submitted that this

matter is already settled by this Court by Hon’ble Justice

Janarthanam, J. in P.A. Saleem and others v. State and another

1

and pointed out that the said case was not brought to the attention

of this Court, during disposal of Crl.O.P.No.6472 of 2025 dated

07.03.2025, Crl.O.P.No.4514 of 2016 dated 02.03.2016 and similar

orders, by this Court and pressed for dismissal of the cases.

16. Heard the learned counsels on either side and carefully

perused the materials available on record.

1 1994 SCC OnLine Mad 860

12/19 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.OP(MD)No.21580, 22033, 22630, 21890 and 22808 of 2025

Common point for consideration:

17. Whether this Court can, in exercise of its inherent

jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C., 1973 / Section 528 BNSS,

2023, directly interfere with or recall Non-Bailable Warrants issued

by the learned Trial Courts, or issue directions dispensing with

personal appearance, in the teeth of the statutory remedy available

before the very Court which issued the warrant, and in light of the

law laid down in P.A. Saleem and others v. State and another

2

.

Analysis:

18. The legal position governing recall of warrants is no longer

res integra. A Division Bench of this Court in P.A. Saleem and

others v. State and another

3

has authoritatively examined the

scheme of the Code of Criminal Procedure relating to issuance,

execution and cancellation of warrants. The Court has categorically

held that a warrant issued under Section 70 Cr.P.C., 1973, 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

2 Supra 1

3 Supra 1

13/19 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.OP(MD)No.21580, 22033, 22630, 21890 and 22808 of 2025

to approach that very Court with an application for cancellation or

recall.

19. The judgment further clarifies that a refusal to cancel a

warrant constitutes a final order amenable to revision under

Sections 397 or 401 Cr.P.C., 1973, and that the inherent jurisdiction

under Section 482 Cr.P.C., 1973, cannot be invoked for a simpliciter

recall of a warrant. The inherent power is not a substitute for

statutory remedies, nor can it be employed to short-circuit the

procedural hierarchy envisaged by law.

20. At the same time, P.A. Saleem and others v. State and

another

4

emphasises that the learned Trial Courts must act with

promptitude and sensitivity. 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. This approach strikes a constitutionally

permissible balance between individual liberty and the collective

interest in the expeditious administration of criminal justice.

4 Supra 1

14/19 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.OP(MD)No.21580, 22033, 22630, 21890 and 22808 of 2025

21. The new criminal laws, including the Bharatiya Nagarik

Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, reiterate the commitment to a justice-

oriented, victim-centric and citizen-responsive system. 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.

22. In the present batch of cases, the grievances raised by the

petitioners whether founded on medical grounds, alleged lack of

service, jurisdictional objections, or age and infirmity, are all matters

that can and must be placed before the respective learned Trial

Courts in applications for recall of warrants. The statutory

framework expressly empowers those Courts to consider such

applications and to pass appropriate orders. If such orders are

adverse, the law provides for revisional scrutiny.

23. Entertaining these petitions under the inherent jurisdiction

of this Court, at this stage, would amount to bypassing the statutory

15/19 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.OP(MD)No.21580, 22033, 22630, 21890 and 22808 of 2025

remedies and would run contrary to the binding dictum in P.A.

Saleem and others v. State and another

5

. This Court is therefore

constrained to hold that the present Criminal Original Petitions are

not maintainable for the reliefs sought.

24. Accordingly, all the Criminal Original Petitions are

disposed of, in view of the law laid down in P.A. Saleem and others

v. State and another

6

.

(a). The petitioners are directed to approach the respective

learned Trial Courts by filing appropriate applications under Section

70(2) Cr.P.C., 1973 / Section 72(2) BNSS, 2023, as the case may be,

seeking recall or cancellation of the Non-Bailable Warrants.

(b). Upon such applications being filed, the concerned Trial

Courts shall consider and dispose of the same expeditiously,

preferably on the same day, in accordance with law, without

adopting a mechanical or punitive approach.

5 Supra 1

6 Supra 1

16/19 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.OP(MD)No.21580, 22033, 22630, 21890 and 22808 of 2025

(c). If any adverse order is passed, it shall be open to the

aggrieved petitioners to avail the revisional remedies provided under

law.

25. The learned Trial Courts are also reminded of the necessity

to ensure speedy disposal of criminal cases, in keeping with the

mandate of Article 21 and the objectives of the new criminal justice

framework. Consequently, all connected miscellaneous petitions are

closed.

02.01.2026

NCC : Yes / No

Index : Yes / No

Internet : Yes/ No

Sml

To

1.The District Munsif cum Judicial

Magistrate, Boothapandy.

2.The Judicial Magistrate/

Fast Track Court, Nagercoil.

3.The Judicial Magistrate Court,

Uthamapalayam, Theni District.

4.The Judicial Magistrate Court No.I,

Kuzhithurai.

17/19 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.OP(MD)No.21580, 22033, 22630, 21890 and 22808 of 2025

5.The Judicial Magistrate,

Avudaiyarkovil, Pudukkottai District.

6.The Inspector of Police,

Boothapandi Police Station,

Kanyakumari District.

7.The Inspector of Police,

Rajakkamangalam Police Station,

Kanyakumari District.

8.The Food Safety Officer,

Code No. 24-470,

Cumbum Municipality and Union

and Gudalur Municipality,

Food Safety and Drug Administration Department,

Teni District.

9.The Inspector of Police,

District Crime Records Bureau (DCRB)

Special Team Police for Executing NBI

in N.I. Act Cases,

Kanyakumari District at Nagercoil.

10.The Drugs Inspector,

Pudukkottai Range in charge,

O/o. The Drugs Inspector,

1093, Kannadasan Salai,

Rajagopalapuram Post,

Pudukkottai – 622 003.

11.The Additional Public Prosecutor,

Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,

Madurai.

18/19 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.OP(MD)No.21580, 22033, 22630, 21890 and 22808 of 2025

L.VICTORIA GOWRI, J.

Sml

CRL OP(MD)No.21580, 22033, 22630 and 21890 of 2025 and

22808 of 2025

02.01.2026

19/19 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis