Judgment : 1. The petitioner in this petition filed under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 has sought for quashing of the order dated 18-11-2011 passed in CC No.82 of 2011 by the Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Hosadurga wherein non-bailable warrant has been directed against him. 2. The brief facts of the case are: The respondent-complainant filed a private complaint against the petitioner and seven others alleging the they have committed offences under Para 76(d) of the Employees’ Provident Funds Scheme, 1952 read with Sections 14(1-A) and 14-A of the Employees’ Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 before the learned Magistrate. After the said complaint came to be filed, by order dated 18-2-2011, the learned Magistrate took cognizance of the offences alleged, registered the case and directed issue of summons to the accused including this petitioner returnable by 25-4-2011. 3. As on 25-4-2011 since summons directed against the accused were not served, the learned Magistrate directed reissue to summons to all the accused returnable by 25-6-2011. On that day, as the learned Judge was on OOD for training, it was adjourned to 29-7-2011. On 29-7-2011 since the summons directed earlier to the accused were not served, the learned Judge directed reissue of summons to accused 1 to 6 and 8 only returnable by 16-9-2011. No summons was directed against the present petitioner who is accused 7 in the case. On 16-9-2011 summons directed to A1 to A6 and A8 returned unexecuted. However, one Sri K.M.P. filed power for accused 8. Therefore, the learned Magistrate directed re-issue of summons to A1 to A6 only returnable by 18-11-2011. On that day also no summons was directed against this petitioner who is accused 7 in this case. On 18-11-2011 the learned Magistrate noting accused 7 and 8 as absent, directed non-bailable warrant as against them and summons to accused 1 to 6 returnable by 21-12-2011. 4. The petitioner being aggrieved of the order dated 18-11-2011 has filed the present petition praying to quash the said order directing non-bailable warrant as against him. 5. The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner contended the order directing issue of non-bailable warrant against the petitioner without summons having not been issued and served cannot be sustained. 4. The petitioner being aggrieved of the order dated 18-11-2011 has filed the present petition praying to quash the said order directing non-bailable warrant as against him. 5. The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner contended the order directing issue of non-bailable warrant against the petitioner without summons having not been issued and served cannot be sustained. He further submitted that in view of what has been held by the Apex Court in catena of decisions, the Court below could not have directed non-bailable warrant without service of summons to the petitioner. He further submitted that the petitioner would appear before the learned Magistrate on his own on the next date of hearing which fixed on 19-5-2012 and have recourse to law. 6. Having regard to the order that is challenged in this petition notice to the respondent is despondent is dispensed with. 7. A perusal of the certified copy of the proceedings of the leaned Magistrate goes to show, no summons has been directed against this petitioner to appear before him either on 16-9-2011 or on 18-11-2011. Suo motu the learned Magistrate on 18-11-2011 without having ordered for issue of summons to this petitioner noting that he is absent has directed non-bailable warrant against him returnable by 21-12-2011. As contended by the learned Counsel for the petitioner this Order of the learned Magistrate directing non-bailable warrant against the petitioner without issuing summons and having not been served on him cannot be sustained. Further, as the learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner would appear before the learned Magistrate on the next date of hearing which is fixed on 19-5-2012 on his own and have recourse to law, the impugned order directing non-bailable warrant against the accused cannot be sustained and deserved to be quashed. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following order.- (i) Criminal petition is allowed; (ii) The order dated 18-11-2011 directing non-bailable warrant to this petitioner arrayed as accused 7 in the case is set aside; (iii) He shall appear before the learned Magistrate on 19-5-2012 on his own, as submitted by the learned Counsel for the petitioner, and have recourse to law.