Recall of Non-Bailable Warrant — Absence of accused — Grant of opportunity Paras 1, 3–4 Petitioner/accused, an Advocate, was absent before Trial Court on 28.04.2026, resulting in issuance of NBW. Case was pending for about six years. Held, High Court in exercise of inherent powers may recall NBW where absence is not shown to be deliberate and one more opportunity would serve ends of justice.

 AP HIGH COURT 

Criminal Procedure — Section 482 Cr.P.C./Section 528 BNSS — Recall of Non-Bailable Warrant — Absence of accused — Grant of opportunity

Paras 1, 3–4

• Petitioner/accused, an Advocate, was absent before Trial Court on 28.04.2026, resulting in issuance of NBW.
• Case was pending for about six years.
• Held, High Court in exercise of inherent powers may recall NBW where absence is not shown to be deliberate and one more opportunity would serve ends of justice.

---

Criminal Proceedings — Non-Bailable Warrant — Judicial discretion — Conditional recall

Para 4

• NBW issued by Magistrate recalled.
• Relief granted subject to condition that petitioner shall appear on next date of hearing (08.05.2026) without fail.
• Court balanced coercive process with fairness in trial.

---

Fair Trial — Opportunity to accused — Preference over technical default

Paras 3–4

• Considering long pendency of trial and nature of default (single absence),
• Court held that denial of opportunity would be disproportionate, and procedural justice requires permitting participation in trial.

---

RATIO DECIDENDI

Para 4

Where a Non-Bailable Warrant is issued due to absence of the accused, the High Court may, in exercise of inherent jurisdiction, recall the warrant if the facts indicate that granting an opportunity would better serve the ends of justice, subject to conditions ensuring appearance.

While negligence in complying with procedural requirements may justify dismissal of applications, courts must adopt a balanced and liberal approach in condoning delay and restoring proceedings—particularly in family property disputes—to ensure adjudication on merits, subject to appropriate costs.

 AP HIGH COURT 

Civil Procedure Code, 1908 — Order IX Rule 13 — Ex parte decree — Setting aside — Scope

Paras 2, 6

• Petition to set aside ex parte decree maintainable upon showing sufficient cause.
• Court must examine explanation for delay and conduct of party.

---

Civil Procedure — Condonation of delay — Principles

Paras 7–8

• Length of delay is not decisive; acceptability of explanation is material.
• Liberal approach permissible where refusal would defeat substantial justice.
• However, negligence and lack of bona fides cannot be ignored.

---

Procedure — Nature — Handmaid of justice

Para 7

• Procedural laws are meant to advance justice, not defeat it.
• Courts should avoid technical dismissal of meritorious matters.

---

Delay and negligence — Balance of approach

Paras 8–9

• Liberal approach must be balanced with:
  • judicial discipline,
  • prevention of abuse of process.
• Negligence disentitles automatic relief.

---

Conditional orders — Non-compliance — Effect

Paras 2, 9

• Failure to comply with conditional order (payment of costs) leads to dismissal of applications.
• However, Court may still grant relief in appropriate cases.

---

Partition suit — Family dispute — Liberal approach

Para 9

• In partition disputes involving family members and property rights:
  • Courts adopt liberal approach to allow adjudication on merits.

---

Restoration of applications — Imposition of costs

Paras 10–11

• Restoration may be granted subject to enhanced costs.
• Costs act as:
  • compensation to opposite party,
  • deterrence against procedural lapses.

---

Appellate/Revisional jurisdiction — Interference

Paras 10–11

• High Court can interfere to:
  • set aside dismissal orders,
  • restore applications,
  • ensure adjudication on merits.

---

Expeditious disposal — Direction

Para 12

• Trial Court directed to expedite proceedings, especially where parties are senior citizens.

---

RATIO DECIDENDI

Paras 7–10

While negligence in complying with procedural requirements may justify dismissal of applications, courts must adopt a balanced and liberal approach in condoning delay and restoring proceedings—particularly in family property disputes—to ensure adjudication on merits, subject to appropriate costs.

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 — Section 163-A — Proof of accident — Requirement Paras 19 In claims under Section 163-A, proof of accident and involvement of vehicle is sufficient. Proof of negligence is not required.

 AP HIGH COURT HELD THAT 

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 — Section 163-A — Proof of accident — Requirement

Paras 19

• In claims under Section 163-A, proof of accident and involvement of vehicle is sufficient.
• Proof of negligence is not required.

---

Motor Accident Claims — Standard of proof — Preponderance of probability

Paras 18–19

• Strict proof beyond reasonable doubt is not required.
• Case to be decided on preponderance of probabilities.

---

Negligence — Finding of Tribunal — Interference by Appellate Court

Paras 16, 19

• Findings of MACT based on:
  • eyewitness evidence,
  • FIR, charge sheet, postmortem,
    warrant no interference when supported by record.

---

Liability — Insurance Company — Driving licence — LMV vs Transport vehicle

Paras 20(iii)–(v)

• Driver holding LMV licence can drive transport vehicle (below 7500 kg).
• No violation of policy conditions in such case.
• Insurance company remains liable to pay compensation.

---

Motor Vehicles Act — Compensation — Determination — Multiplier method

Paras 21, 23

• Compensation to be determined by:
  • fixing multiplicand (income),
  • applying appropriate multiplier.
• Multiplier depends on age as per Sarla Verma.

---

Compensation — Future prospects and conventional heads

Paras 21, 23–24

• Addition of future prospects as per Pranay Sethi.
• Compensation under:
  • loss of estate,
  • funeral expenses,
  • consortium (including filial consortium).

---

Compensation — Just compensation — Scope

Para 22

• Tribunal empowered to award just compensation even beyond claim.
• Technicalities should not restrict compensation.

---

Deduction — Personal expenses — Unmarried deceased

Para 23(ii)

• 50% deduction towards personal expenses for unmarried deceased is proper.

---

Interest — Enhancement

Para 24

• Interest rate enhanced from 6% to 7.5% p.a.

---

Appellate Court — Power to enhance compensation

Paras 23–26

• Appellate Court can:
  • reassess income,
  • apply correct multiplier,
  • enhance compensation accordingly.

---

RATIO DECIDENDI

Paras 19, 23–25

In a claim under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, proof of accident is sufficient and negligence need not be established; compensation must be determined on settled principles including multiplier method and conventional heads to ensure just compensation, and insurer remains liable where no policy breach is established.

A writ petition under Article 226 seeking registration of an FIR is not maintainable in the first instance when effective statutory remedies under criminal law are available and have not been exhausted; any FIR registered pursuant to such improper invocation of writ jurisdiction is liable to be quashed.

 APEX COURT HELD THAT 

Constitution of India — Article 226 — Writ jurisdiction — Scope — Alternate remedy

Paras 5, 7, 10–11

• Writ jurisdiction is extraordinary and discretionary.
• Should not ordinarily be exercised where effective alternative statutory remedy exists.
• Exhaustion of remedies is a rule of policy, convenience, and discretion.

---

Alternate Remedy — Exceptions

Para 5 (Radha Krishan Industries principles)

• Writ may be entertained despite alternative remedy only in cases of:
  • violation of fundamental rights,
  • breach of natural justice,
  • lack of jurisdiction,
  • challenge to vires.

---

Criminal Law — Registration of FIR — Remedy for non-registration

Paras 6–8

• Proper statutory mechanism:
  • Approach SHO (first instance),
  • then Superintendent of Police,
  • then Magistrate under statutory provisions.
• Direct recourse to High Court is discouraged.

---

BNSS, 2023 — Sequential statutory mechanism — Compliance

Paras 8–9

• Law provides structured remedy:
  • Section 173(1) — FIR registration,
  • Section 173(4) — SP remedy,
  • Section 175(3) — Magistrate.
• Parties must follow statutory sequence before invoking writ jurisdiction.

---

Writ Petition — Seeking direction for FIR — Maintainability

Paras 6–7, 9–11

• High Court should not act as forum of first instance for FIR registration.
• Petition seeking FIR without exhausting remedies is premature.

---

Judicial Discipline — High Court — Limits of interference

Paras 7, 11

• High Court must not bypass statutory framework.
• Entertaining such petitions leads to misuse of writ jurisdiction.

---

Criminal Proceedings — FIR — Quashing

Paras 12–13

• FIR registered pursuant to improper writ direction liable to be quashed.
• Liberty granted to pursue statutory remedies afresh.

---

Principle — Article 226 not a substitute for statutory remedies

Paras 9–11

• Writ jurisdiction is not a panacea for all grievances.
• Statutory remedies must be exhausted unless exceptional circumstances exist.

---

RATIO DECIDENDI

Paras 7, 9–12

A writ petition under Article 226 seeking registration of an FIR is not maintainable in the first instance when effective statutory remedies under criminal law are available and have not been exhausted; any FIR registered pursuant to such improper invocation of writ jurisdiction is liable to be quashed.

Service Law — Promotion — Relaxation of Rules — Validity Paras 19–20, 27 Government may relax service rules in appropriate cases. Promotion granted pursuant to judicial directions and policy decision is valid. G.O. granting notional promotion upheld.

 APEX COURT HELD THAT

Service Law — Promotion — Relaxation of Rules — Validity

Paras 19–20, 27

• Government may relax service rules in appropriate cases.
• Promotion granted pursuant to judicial directions and policy decision is valid.
• G.O. granting notional promotion upheld.

---

Service Rules — Policy decision — Merger of departments — Effect on seniority

Paras 16–17

• On merger of departments, employees of one department may be placed below existing employees of another.
• Placement based on departmental hierarchy and policy instructions is valid.
• Government Order governing merger not challenged — binds parties.

---

Seniority — Inter se seniority — Determination

Paras 17, 20

• Seniority determined in accordance with:
  • applicable service rules,
  • Government policy,
  • cadre classification.
• Employees from Town Planning Department placed below Engineering Department employees.

---

Promotion — Notional promotion — Legality

Paras 19, 27

• Notional promotion with retrospective effect permissible where:
  • employee was otherwise entitled,
  • delay attributable to administration.
• Such promotion does not violate service jurisprudence.

---

Judicial Review — High Court interference — Scope

Paras 22–24

• Division Bench erred by:
  • ignoring material facts,
  • overlooking subsequent developments,
  • interfering with long-settled service matters.
• Courts should avoid unsettling settled promotions after long lapse of time.

---

Subsequent events — Relevance

Paras 21–23

• Subsequent promotions of parties and retirement are relevant.
• Where no live dispute survives, interference unwarranted.

---

Finality — Long-standing promotions — Protection

Paras 23–24

• Promotions already scrutinised and upheld earlier cannot be reopened.
• Reopening settled service matters causes administrative instability.

---

Fence-sitter doctrine — Delay and laches

Para 25

• Persons who do not challenge in time cannot later seek relief.
• Fence-sitters not entitled to:
  • seniority benefits,
  • promotion claims.

---

Delay and laches — Public service matters

Para 25

• Courts discourage stale claims in service matters.
• Relief denied where rights of third parties have crystallised.

---

Impleadment — Stranger to proceedings — No relief

Paras 25–26

• Third parties not part of original proceedings cannot seek relief at final stage.
• No enforceable right shown — relief denied.

---

RATIO DECIDENDI

Paras 17, 20, 27

Promotions granted pursuant to valid policy decisions, rule relaxations, and judicial directions cannot be interfered with after a long lapse of time, particularly when seniority and service benefits have already crystallised; stale claims and challenges by fence-sitters are liable to be rejected.