JUDGMENT Bharat Bhushan, J. Learned AGA has accepted notice on behalf of respondent no. 1 State. 2. Heard Sri Sanjay Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned AGA for the State. 3. It appears that complainant filed a complaint against seven persons bearing no. 291 of 2001 (Prakashi versus Smt. Shahida and others) before the Magistrate. On 26.8.2014, an exemption application was filed on behalf of the accused persons, namely, Babu Khan, Jamshed and Sardar Ali but petitioners remained absent. Therefore, learned Magistrate was constrained to issue non-bailable warrants against Smt. Saeeda and Mohd. Kamil. It appears that both the petitioners did not appear before the trial court despite issuance of the warrants but preferred criminal revision bearing number Nil of 2014 (Saeeda and others versus State) before the Sessions Judge, Saharanpur. The Sessions Judge, after considering the entire material on record dismissed the criminal revision vide order dated 16.9.2014. Both these orders are under challenge before this Court in the writ jurisdiction. 4. I am afraid this writ petition is not sustainable for the simple reason that whenever accused are absent in the court, the trial court has no option but to issue warrants against them. Now the petitioner could have appeared before the trial court and sought withdrawal of warrants but instead of appearing before the trial court, they have already wasted 8 months in perusing other remedies. 5. There is no illegality, perversity or impropriety in the impugned orders. The writ petition is devoid of any merit and is according dismissed.