ORDER : J. SREENIVAS RAO, J. 1. This Criminal Petition has been filed aggrieved by the orders dated 12.11.2025 passed in C.C.No.9947 of 2024 on the file of XV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad in issuing fresh Non-Bailable Warrant against accused No.3. 2. Heard Mr. L. Anand, learned counsel representing Mr. P. Nagendra Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Jithendar Rao Veeramalla, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent No.1. Notice in respect of respondent No.2/de facto complainant is dispensed with on the ground that the petitioner has questioned the NBWs issued by the learned Magistrate. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is an accused No.3 in C.C.No.9947 of 2024 on the file of XV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad, registered for the offence punishable under sections 498A, 406, 420, 504, 506, 323, 509 of IPC and Sections 3 & 4 of DP Act. The learned Magistrate ought to have issued summons before issuing NBW and even after issuance of summons, if the accused failed to appear before the Court, the learned Magistrate is having power to issue Non-Bailable Warrant (for short ‘NBW’) against the accused. But, the learned Magistrate without following the said procedure, while taking cognizance for the above said offences, issued NBW against the accused straight away, without issuing summons solely basing upon the final report and the request made by the Investigating Officer and the same is contrary to the law. 4. He further submitted that initially the petitioner approached this Court and filed Criminal Petition No.12188 of 2025, aggrieved by the docket order dated 30.09.2024 passed in C.C.No.9947 of 2024 by the learned Magistrate issuing NBW against the accused No.3. This Court allowed the said petition on 18.09.2025, by setting aside the above docket order and directed the Trial Court to issue summons to accused No.3 and proceed with the matter strictly in accordance with law. Inspite of the same, the learned Magistrate issued NBW afresh on the accused No.3 on 12.11.2025, which is contrary to law. 5. In support of his submissions, learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the Judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Satender Kumar Antil Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and Another. 2022) 10 SCC 51 6. Inspite of the same, the learned Magistrate issued NBW afresh on the accused No.3 on 12.11.2025, which is contrary to law. 5. In support of his submissions, learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the Judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Satender Kumar Antil Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and Another. 2022) 10 SCC 51 6. Per contra, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that the petitioner has not filed a copy of order dated 18.09.2025 passed by this Court in CrlP.No.12188 of 2025 before the Trial Court. Due to the same, inadvertently, the learned Magistrate has passed the said orders. 7. Having considered the rival submissions made by the respective parties and after perusal of the material on record, it reveals that the petitioner initially has approached this Court and filed CrlP.No.12188 of 2025 seeking quashment of the docket order dated 30.09.2024 in C.C.No.9947 of 2024 passed by the Trial Court, thereafter this Court allowed the said petition by setting aside the above docket order and further directed the Trial Court to issue summons to accused No.3 and proceed with the matter strictly in accordance with law. Despite aforesaid direction of this Court, the learned Magistrate issued NBW afresh against accused No.3 on 12.11.2025 in C.C.No.9947 of 2024 on the file of the learned XV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad as the Police have mentioned that the petitioner did not cooperate with the investigation. 8. It is a trite law that after taking cognizance of an offence, the Magistrate must ordinarily issue summons to the accused. Only if the accused fails to appear even after service of summons can the Court take coercive steps, such as issuing a Non-Bailable Warrant, but issuing an NBW at the initial stage itself, without first issuing summons or without recording any reasons showing that the accused is deliberately avoiding the Court or not cooperating with the investigation, is not permissible in law. 9. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has, in a consistent line of decisions, unequivocally held that mere allegations of non- cooperation by the Investigating Officer cannot, by themselves, justify the issuance of a non-bailable warrant at the stage of taking cognizance. 9. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has, in a consistent line of decisions, unequivocally held that mere allegations of non- cooperation by the Investigating Officer cannot, by themselves, justify the issuance of a non-bailable warrant at the stage of taking cognizance. In Satender Kumar Antil (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court mandated adherence to the graded process contemplated under the Code of Criminal Procedure, namely issuance of summons in the first instance, followed by bailable warrants, only thereafter, NBWs can be issued and the learned Magistrate has to record cogent reasons. Mechanical issuance of NBWs without application of judicial mind and without exhausting lesser coercive measures is impermissible in law. The same principle was reiterated in Vikas v. State of Rajasthan (2014) 3 SCC 321 wherein it was held that at the stage of cognizance, a Magistrate cannot issue NBWs merely on the Investigating Officer's allegation of non-cooperation and is duty-bound to follow the graded procedure. In Siddharth v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2022) 1 SCC 676 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court further clarified that allegations contained in the charge sheet, including alleged non-cooperation, do not automatically warrant coercive measures such as NBWs. Similarly, in Lakshay Jaiswal v. State (NCT of Delhi) , 2024 SCC OnLine Del 2583 , the High Court of Delhi deprecated the mechanical issuance of NBWs solely on the request of the Investigating Officer. In Aman Preet Singh v. Central Bureau of Investigation (2022) 13 SCC 764 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the mere filing of a charge sheet or taking of cognizance cannot be a ground for issuance of NBWs without independent judicial reasoning. Finally, in Raghuvansh Dewanchand Bhasin v. State of Maharashtra (2012) 9 SCC 791 the Court authoritatively laid down that after cognizance, the normal rule is to secure the presence of the accused by summons or, at the highest, by bailable warrants, and that NBWs being an exceptional measure can be issued only upon recording independent judicial satisfaction that lesser processes would be ineffective, such as in cases of deliberate evasion or likelihood of absconding, allegations or opinions of the Investigating Officer, including allegations of non-cooperation, cannot substitute judicial application of mind, and mechanical issuance of NBWs was held to be impermissible in law and violative of Article 21 of the Constitution. 10. 10. It is already stated supra that, in the case on hand, the learned Magistrate, without issuing summons straightaway issued a non-bailable warrant against the petitioner without recording any reasons or satisfaction, solely on the basis of the final report and the request made by the Investigating Officer. Such action is contrary to the settled legal position laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court as mentioned supra is contrary to law. 11. For the foregoing reasons and in light of the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court supra, this Court is of the considered view that the impugned order dated 12.11.2025 passed by the Trial Court issuing a non-bailable warrant against the petitioner/accused No.3 at the stage of taking cognizance, without first issuing summons, is contrary to law and the same is liable to be set aside, accordingly set aside. 12. In the result, the criminal petition is allowed and the learned Magistrate is directed to issue summons to petitioner/accused No.3 and proceed with the matter in accordance with law. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.