'Scant Regard' For Judicial Orders By Police Delays Justice, Floods High Court With Petitions: Orissa High Court Asks DGP To Intervene

While deciding a suo moto contempt proceeding initiated against an IIC for misplacing a Non-Bailable Warrant (NBW) and giving wrong instruction to the Court about its non-issuance by the jurisdictional Magistrate, the Bench of Justice Savitri Ratho observed–

“Unfortunately, ignoring the orders of the Magistrate is not the forte of the IIC Bisra Police Station only. After being given the assignment of CRLMPs (applications under Article – 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India which arise out of criminal cases), I have come across a number of cases where there is allegation against the IICs of different Police Stations all over the State that they have scant regard for judicial orders and directions, for which the aggrieved persons have to approach this Court.”

The contempt proceeding emanated from the hearing of a criminal miscellaneous petition (CRLMP). The petitioner-Md. Rashid @ Rashid Quraishi in the said CRLMP alleged that despite issuance of an NBW on 10.07.2025 by the Judicial Magistrate First Class (JMFC), Rajgangpur, the police neither executed the same by arresting the accused nor it furnished a report of non-execution before the JMFC.

The accused had earlier entered appearance through his counsel in 2024 and kept on filing time petitions, which delayed the trial proceedings. Subsequently, he filed an application under Section 205, CrPC to dispense his personal appearance, which was rejected by the JMFC. A bailable warrant was also issued against him on 05.12.2024. Shockingly, the police neither executed the bailable warrant nor gave any report to the Court despite reminders.

Consequently, the Magistrate was constrained to recall the order granting bail to the accused and issued an NBW. Though the case was repeatedly posted after such issuance, the same had to be adjourned every time for the want of execution of the warrant. Therefore, the petitioner filed the CRLMP before the High Court seeking a direction to execute the NBW.

When the Court took up hearing in the case and sought instructions from the government regarding non-execution of the NBW, the Government Counsel informed the Court that no NBW against the accused was received by the jurisdictional police from the Court of the JMFC. Basing upon such instruction, the Court called for a report from the JMFC. The JMFC apprised the Court that the NBW had in fact been issued and sent to the police station through registered post and the AD has been received back after due service on 24.07.2025.

Considering the report of the Magistrate, the Court asked the IIC, Bisra Police Station to file an affidavit deposing the truthfulness of the information supplied by him to the Government Counsel vis-à-vis non-receipt of the NBW. To the utter surprise of the Court, the IIC by an affidavit dated 01.05.2026 deposed that the NBW was received by the registered post from the Court of the JMFC, however the same was misplaced due to the negligence of a subordinate staff.

Taking serious view of the casual attitude of the IIC, the Court had directed initiation of a suo moto contempt proceeding. Justice Ratho was utterly dissatisfied by the explanation furnished by the IIC. Dismissing his excuse, the Judge held–

“This explanation/excuse is not acceptable as more than one and half years have elapsed since the NBW was received in the Bisra Police Station. Had the NBW been placed the dak file, with in this period, the dak file must have been opened on a number of occasions and hence the NBW would have been discovered. That apart, separate registers for dak and NBWs are maintained in the Police Station. So the explanation that the NBW was misplaced in the dak file does not inspire confidence and is rejected.”

The Court highlighted the lackadaisical attitude on the part of the IIC who not only ignored the NBW sent to the police station by the JMFC, but also sent wrong instructions to the office of the Advocate General which was ultimately placed before the Court. The Bench also underscored that such apathy on the part of police has been very frequent and this is not a singular instance.

“There are numerous instances where orders have been passed by different Magistrates in exercise of power under Section – 156 (3) of the Cr.P.C. and thereafter under Section 175(4) of the BNSS directing the concerned Police Station to register a case and submit a report to the Court. Either a case is not registered, or even if a case is registered, no report in this regard is submitted to the learned Magistrate by the concerned IIC, for which the case unnecessarily suffers numerous adjournments, awaiting such report,” it added.

Moreover, the Judge also shed light on the insouciance of police in sensitive cases concerning grant of maintenance under Section 125 CrPC/Section 144 BNSS.

“In many such cases, Distress Warrants and/or Conditional NBWs are issued by the Court for execution of the order of payment of maintenance to the concerned Police Station. But no steps are taken by the IIC of the Police Station to either execute the warrant or to inform the learned Court about steps taken for execution of the warrant or the difficulty in execution of the warrant for which the case gets adjourned awaiting instructions.”

Justice Ratho reminded that the High Court is not an “executing court” for orders passed by the District Judiciary. She also highlighted that NBWs are not a routine tool used by Judges/Magistrates. It is only issued in cases of extreme defiance. Therefore, nonchalant attitude of police in their execution is fatal for criminal justice delivery system.

“In spite of a number of orders being passed and reminders issued by the Magistrates and other Judges of the District Courts, the Officers in Charge of the concerned Police Stations fail to respond cases for which the cases suffer repeated adjournments. This is because if the police does not report to the Court that it is not possible to execute a warrant (whatever the reason), the Court cannot take issue proclamation or attach the property of the accused / warrantee for ensuring his presence.”

Accordingly, a direction was passed to the DGP to instruct all the SPs to ensure strict compliance of judicial orders/directions by the police official across the State.

So far as the contempt case was concerned, the Court took a sympathetic view and dropped the same considering the unconditional apology tendered by the IIC.

Case Title: Registrar (Judicial), Orissa High Court, Cuttack v. Manoranjan Kumbhar, IIC, Bisra Police Station, Rourkela

Case No: CONTC No. 2824 of 2026 (Arising out of CRLMP No. 393 of 2026)

Date of Judgment: June 12, 2026

Counsel for the Petitioner: Mr. R.K. Pradhan, Advocate

Counsel for the Contemnor: Mr. Amitabh Pradhan, Addl. Standing Counsel

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ori) 56