JUDGMENT :- 1. This petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking to set aside the order passed by the learned XI Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet dated 7.1.2011 made in M.P.No. 179 of 2011. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and also the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side). 3. The facts of the case are as follows:- The complainant filed a private complaint before the XI Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet. Thereafter, the complainant has filed Crl.O.P.No. 39296 of 2004 before this court and got direction to the police to investigate the complaint and to file a final report. The investigating officer filed a final report in X. Cr.No.458 of 2000 on 20.1.2007 and it was taken on file by the court. 4. The gist of the case is that on 26.12.2003 A2 created forged lease deed as well as encumbrance certificates in respect of immovable property situate at Kotturpuram, Chennai by impersonating the complainant by setting up fictitious person and registered those documents. Hence the case has been taken on file for the offences punishable under Sections 465, 466, 467, 468, 471 and 420 IPC. The accused is evading to appear before the Court and not allowing the trial court to frame charges. In spite of the effort taken by the learned Magistrate, the charges could not be framed since the accused were not present on one reason or other. In respect of A1, Non-bailable Warrant was issued. They have not appeared before the trial court. The learned Magistrate also postponed the case for framing of the charges. For the absentee's the learned Magistrate has issued Non-Bailable Warrant one after one, expecting all the accused will be present in future hearings so as to enable the court to frame issues. But all the accused never appeared before the court and they are playing hide and seek game by not allowing the court to frame the charges against the accused. Therefore, the learned Magistrate has no other option except to issue Non-Bailable Warrant and accordingly issued Non Bailable Warrant against A2. 5. From the perusal of the case, it is seen that A3 has not appeared for the previous hearing. Therefore, warrant was issued against A3. As against that order, A3 has filed Crl.O.P.No.2156 of 2001 before this court. Therefore, the learned Magistrate has no other option except to issue Non-Bailable Warrant and accordingly issued Non Bailable Warrant against A2. 5. From the perusal of the case, it is seen that A3 has not appeared for the previous hearing. Therefore, warrant was issued against A3. As against that order, A3 has filed Crl.O.P.No.2156 of 2001 before this court. When the matter was heard by this court, A3 gave an undertaking that he will appear in future hearings continuously and on that undertaking this court (Hon'ble Mr.Justice K.N.Basha) has recalled the warrant and passed suitable orders on 28.1.2011. On 8.2.2011 it appears that A3 has appeared before the trial court. But A4 was called absent. Hence, the learned Magistrate issued warrant against A4. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner herein through the same counsel has moved for a similar order before this court. From this, it is clear that the trial court is making its endeavour to frame charges relating to the case of the year 2007 by taking coercive steps to secure the presence of the accused. This court appreciates the said endeavour shown by the Magistrate. 6. The above case is posted for hearing on 1.3.2011.Now, the petitioner has given an undertaking that he will appear before the trial court on 1.3.2011 and subsequently on all future hearings regularly. The said undertaking of the petitioner that he will hereinafter regularly appear before the trial court is recorded. 7. In view of the undertaking given by the petitioner that he would appear before the trial court regularly, I am of the view that in the interest of justice, it is necessary to direct the Judicial Magistrate to recall the warrant on the appearance of the accused. Further, since the case has been pending from 2007, it is appropriate to frame the charges against all the accused at the earliest by securing presence of the other accused also. 8. Hence, the petitioner is directed to surrender before the XI Metropolitan Magistrate, on 1.3.2011 and on such appearance, the trial court is directed recall the warrant issued against the petitioner. In the event of the failure of the other accused in appearing before the trial court, the trial court is directed to frame charges individually for those who appeared. 8. Hence, the petitioner is directed to surrender before the XI Metropolitan Magistrate, on 1.3.2011 and on such appearance, the trial court is directed recall the warrant issued against the petitioner. In the event of the failure of the other accused in appearing before the trial court, the trial court is directed to frame charges individually for those who appeared. For the remaining accused, the trial court is directed to adjourn the case once in a week and frame the charges accordingly against the said remaining accused and dispose of the case as expeditiously. 9. With the above directions, the Criminal Original Petition is disposed of.