ORDER : 1. This Criminal Original Petition has been filed in the SR stage to recall the non-bailable warrants issued against the petitioners in C.C. No. 543 of 2015 on the file of II Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai, pending execution with the respondents 1 to 3 and to cancel the same. 2. For the sake of convenience, the parties will be referred to by their name. 3. Jyotsa Sivakumar, 4th respondent herein, filed C.C. No. 543 of 2015 before the II Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai, against (1) Chandrasekar Sivaraman, (2) N.S. Sivaraman, (3) Gowri Sivaraman and (4) Gayathri Karthik, who are the petitioners herein, under the Domestic Violence Act. 4. During the pendency of the proceedings, on 29.12.2015, the following adjudication orders have been passed by the II Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai, in C.C. No. 543 of 2015, which reads as follows: "29.12.2015 Memo received. Complainant at 256 filed and allowed. Accused absent. No representation for the accused. Sd/- II M.M. 29.12.2015 Issue N.B.W to Accused by 12.00 A.M. The counsel filed Memo of appearance and represented. The case is pending before H.C. for orders. Hence clarification. Call on 06.01.2016. Sd/- 06.01.2016 Order copy furnished by Counsel. On verification P2 and P3 Dispensed with vide order. R4 is represented to be quashed. Await orders. R1 absent. Counsel represented against R1 also petition pending before H.C. Await orders. NBW against R1 and 317 filed and allowed. Call on 28.01.2016. Sd/- 5. Thereafter, the parties appear to have arrived at a compromise, on account of which, Jyotsa Sivakumar filed a Memo/petition dated 13.06.2016 in C.C. No. 543 of 2015 before the II metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai, which reads as under: "PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONER U/S 257 Cr.P.C. The petitioner above named begs to state as follows: 1. The petitioner submits that a settlement has been arrived at between her and the respondents. She is receiving today from the 1st respondent through his counsel a demand draft is her name for the sum of Rs. Fifteen lacs in full quit of all her claims against the first respondent. 2. A. Memorandum of compromise in this respect is being filed before the Honorable High Court in CRP 323 of 2016 today. 3. In this situation, the petitioner does not wish to proceed further with the above complaint against the respondents. 4. She prays that the above C.C. may be dismissed as withdrawn. 2. A. Memorandum of compromise in this respect is being filed before the Honorable High Court in CRP 323 of 2016 today. 3. In this situation, the petitioner does not wish to proceed further with the above complaint against the respondents. 4. She prays that the above C.C. may be dismissed as withdrawn. In the light of the compromise arrived at between the parties and the withdrawal of the complaint, it is also prayed that the non-bailable warrants issued earlier against the respondents 1 to 4, may be recalled and cancelled and justice rendered. Dated at Chennai on this 13th day of June, 2016." In view of the memo, the II Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai, dismissed the complaint as withdrawn on the very same day i.e. on 13.06.2016. 6. Now, Chandrasekar Sivaraman, N.S.Sivaraman, Gowri Sivaraman and Gayathri Karthik, have filed the present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for a direction to the II Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai, to withdraw the Non-Bailable Warrant, because they apprehend that if the Non-Bailable Warrant is not properly re-called, there are every chances of them being arrested and detained by the police unwittingly, on the strength of the expired warrants. 7. This petition has been filed without the signed Vakalat of the parties, because it is stated that all of them are in USA and that, they are likely to come to India for a Wedding on 21.08.2016 and since the time is too short, the learned counsel is unable to obtain their signed Vakalat or Power of Attorney from USA to be filed before this Court. 8. In the considered opinion of this Court, that cannot be a good reason to entertain a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C without the signature of the parties in the Vakalat Nama. However, taking into consideration the peculiar facts of this case, this Court called for a report from the II Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai, with regard to the fate of the warrants issued in C.C. No. 543 of 2015. However, taking into consideration the peculiar facts of this case, this Court called for a report from the II Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai, with regard to the fate of the warrants issued in C.C. No. 543 of 2015. The II Metropolitan Magistrate has addressed a communication dated 11.08.2016 to the Commissioner of Police, Greater Chennai Police, Vepery, Chennai-7, which reads as under:- "I would like to bring your notice that in C.C. No. 543/2015 filed by Mrs.Jyotsna Sivakumar against Respondents (1) Chandrasekar Sivaraman presently residing at Apartment 129, 3230, Overland Avenue, Los Angles, California-90034, USA and (2) N.S.Sivaraman (3) Gowri Sivaraman (4) Gayathri Karthik all living in 25, Raphael Drive, Monmouth Junction, New Jersey NJ08852, USA. This court issued bailable warrants against, the above said respondents and the warrants were sent to your office for execution. Now, the case has been dismissed as withdrawn. Hence the warrants sent to your office may be returned to this Court. If your Office issued any lookout notice to the Airport Authorities that may also be withdrawn immediately." In view of the above, the petitioners need not have any apprehension that they will either be arrested or detained at the immigration point in connection with C.C. No. 543 of 2015, when they arrive. In the result, the objection raised by the Registry is upheld. Hence, the criminal original petition is closed in the SR stage itself.