- (1.) M. Katju, J. Heard learned counsel for the parties. This is an application under Section 482 Cr. P. C. for quashing the order dated 24-9-1996. It is stated in paragraph 14 of the application that vide order dated 24-9-1996, true copy of which is Annexure 10 to the writ petition, the trial court in S. T No. 419 of 1994 straightaway issued non-bailable warrant of arrest against the applicant under Section 319 Cr. P. C.
(2.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner contended that the trial Court should only have issued summons to the applicant at the first instance and should not have straightaway issued non-bailable warrant. He has relied on Section 87, Cr. P. C. which states: "87. Issue of warrant in lien of, or in addition to, summons.-A court may, in any case in which it is empowered by this Code to issue a summons for the appearance of any persons, issue, after record ing its reasons in writing, a warrant for this arrest. (a) if, either before the issue of such sum mons, or after the issue of the same but before the time fixed for his appearance, the court sees reason to believe that he has absconded or will not obey the summons; or (b) if at such time he fails to appear and the summons is proved to have been duly served in time to admit of his appearing in accordance therewith and no reasonable excuse is offered for such failure. " A perusal of the above section shows that the court should not straightaway issue warrant except after recording its reasons in writing and only if the conditions men tioned in clause (a) and (b) of Section 87 are made out. I have carefully perused the im pugned order dated 24-9-1996. It is not mentioned in this order that the applicant has absconded or will not obey the summons or that he has failed to appear in response to a summons earlier issued. In Ahmed Ali v. State of Assam, 1990 Crl. LJ. 1041, it was held by the Gauhati High Court that a warrant should not be issued where summons would suffice. The same view has been taken in a large number of cases and it is not necessary to refer to all of them. Suffice it to say that issue of non-bailable warrant is a serious matter and it is not to be done lightly as that would violate Section 87, Cr. P. C. Ordinarily summons should be issued first as the purpose of the provisions is to secure attendance of the accused, and it is only if the accused fails to appear then warrant should be issued. The tendency of the Courts to straightway issue non-bailable warrant in violation of Section 87, Cr. P. C. cannot be appreciated. Hence I set aside the order dated 24-9-1996 but I direct that the said order shall be treated as an order of issuance of summons. With these observa tions, the application is disposed of finally. Order accordingly. .;