ORDER : Issuance of notice to respondent is dispensed with, since no order prejudicial to the interest of respondent is being passed in this petition. 2. Heard, Sri. Prasanna V.R., learned counsel appearing for petitioner. Perused the order under challenge dated 23.02.2018 passed in C.C.No.636/2017, where under application filed by the petitioner/accused under Section 70(2) of Cr.P.C. for recall of non-bailable warrant issued, has been rejected on the ground of absence of accused. 3. Respondent herein has initiated proceedings against the petitioner/accused by filing a complaint under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter referred to as ‘NI Act’ for short), alleging that respondent/accused has committed an offence punishable under Section 138 of NI Act. Summons issued to the petitioner/accused was not served. As such learned Magistrate by order dated 07.12.2017 has issued non-bailable warrant to the accused. Thereafter, on 23.02.2018 accused having come to know about warrant having been issued against him, filed an application under Section 70(2) of Cr.P.C. for recall of the warrant. However, learned Magistrate on the premise that accused is not present when the application is taken-up for consideration, has rejected the said application. 4. Section 70(2) of Cr.P.C. does not indicate that accused should be present when the warrant for recall is filed. Offence alleged against petitioner/accused is under Section 138 of NI Act and it is a summon’s case. As such learned Magistrate ought to have considered the application for recall of non-bailable warrant even in the absence of accused. 5. Hon’ble High Courts of Andhra Pradesh, Delhi and Bombay have taken a view that application for recall of non-bailable warrant issue against accused in summons case cannot be rejected on the ground of accused not being present at the time of said application being considered. This Court is in complete agreement with the view expressed by the said High Courts and as such, order under challenge cannot be accepted. Hence, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER (i) Criminal petition is hereby allowed. (ii) Order dated 23.02.2018 passed in C.C.No.636/2017 by the learned JMFC V Court, Dakshina Kannada, Mangalore, rejecting the application filed for recall of non-bailable warrant issued against petitioner/accused, is hereby set aside. Hence, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER (i) Criminal petition is hereby allowed. (ii) Order dated 23.02.2018 passed in C.C.No.636/2017 by the learned JMFC V Court, Dakshina Kannada, Mangalore, rejecting the application filed for recall of non-bailable warrant issued against petitioner/accused, is hereby set aside. (iii) Application filed by petitioner under Section 70(2) of Cr.P.C. for recall of non-bailable warrant is hereby allowed in view of categorical undertaking given by learned counsel appearing for petitioner that accused would be present on the next date of hearing before JMFC V Court, Dakshina Kannada, Mangalore, which is adjudicated in PCR No.784/2017. Said undertaking is also placed on record. In view of petition having been allowed, I.A.No.1/2018 for stay does not survive for consideration and same stands rejected.