Disposed¶16

Rajeswari Sahu v. State of Odisha

Orissa HC13 Feb 2026CRLMP/148/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

NBW execution; non-bailable warrant not executed by police; Section 138 NI Act cheque dishonour case; 1CC (N.I.) 46 of 2024; S.D.J.M. Bargarh; cognizance order dated 06.08.2024; bailable warrant then NBW; court's responsibility to ensure execution of its own order; contempt for non-adherence of judicial direction; escalation to Chief Judicial Magistrate; police–Magistrate meeting; District Judge senior officers' meeting; direction to executing court; CRLMP disposed of; High Court of Orissa at Cuttack; Chittaranjan Dash, J.; order dated 13.02.2026.

What did the court decide?

Direction issued to the learned court concerned to proceed as observed in the order to ensure execution of the NBW order dated 04.04.2025; the CRLMP stands disposed of accordingly. ¶16

Rajeswari Sahu Vs State of Odisha — Cheque Dishonour | Orissa HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Direction issued to the learned court concerned to proceed as observed in the order to ensure execution of the NBW order dated 04.04.2025; the CRLMP stands disposed of accordingly.

¶16

Issue for consideration

Whether this Court should direct Opposite Party Nos. 2 and 3 to execute the NBW order dated 04.04.2025 passed by the learned S.D.J.M., Bargarh in 1CC (N.I.) 46 of 2024. +1 more

¶12

Court's answer

It is directed that the learned court concerned proceed as observed in the order to ensure that the NBW order dated 04.04.2025 is executed.

¶16

Ratio / Principle

The court issuing an NBW is equally responsible to ensure that its order is executed by the executing authority; non-adherence of the Court's direction on the judicial side is subject to further action under the law, including contempt, if such eventuality arises.

¶15

Key takeaways

The order of the court in the instant case has not been carried out by the concerned police authority, and it was expected that the learned Magistrate should have taken the matter up with higher officials and the concerned Chief Judicial Magistrate, to be raised in the police–Magistrate's meeting and the senior officers' meeting by the learned District Judge of the concerned district.ratio¶15
Perusal of the case record does not reveal that any such escalation step was taken by the court concerned.ratio¶15

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Orissa at Cuttack — CRLMP No.148 of 2026 (Chittaranjan Dash, J.), order dated 13.02.2026: In a criminal miscellaneous application seeking a direction to Opposite Party Nos. 2 and 3 to execute an NBW dated 04.04.2025 passed by the learned S.D.J.M., Bargarh in 1CC (N.I.) 46 of 2024 (a Section 138 NI Act case in which cognizance was taken on 06.08.2024 and the accused, absent despite delivery of summons and a bailable warrant, attracted an NBW), the Court held that the court issuing an NBW is equally responsible for ensuring its execution by the executing authority and that non-adherence of a judicial-side direction is liable to further action including contempt. Finding that the order had not been carried out by the concerned police authority, and that the record disclosed no escalation by the Magistrate to higher officials, the Chief Judicial Magistrate, the police–Magistrate's meeting or the District Judge's senior officers' meeting, the Court directed the learned court concerned to proceed as observed to secure execution and disposed of the CRLMP accordingly.

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK CRLMP No.148 of 2026

¶2

Rajeswari Sahu …. Petitioner Ms. P. Muduli, Advocate

¶3

-versus-

¶4

…. State of Odisha and others Opp. Parties

¶5

Mr. J.K. Khandayatray, Addl. P. P.

¶6

CORAM:

¶7

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE CHITTARANJAN DASH

ORDER

Order No.

13.02.2026

1. Heard learned counsel for the Parties.

¶12

By means of this application, the Petitioner seeks the indulgence of this Court for a direction to the Opposite Party Nos. 2 and 3 to execute the order of NBW dated 04.04.2025 passed by the learned S.D.J.M., Bargarh in 1CC (N.I.) 46 of 2024.

¶13

In course of the hearing in the application, the learned counsel for the Petitioner drew the attention of this Court to the order dated 06.08.2024 passed by the learned Magistrate, whereby it took cognizance against the accused under Section 138 of the N.I. Act and upon issuance of the

¶14

process, for the absence of the accused before the court, initially B.W. was issued since the summon was delivered and as the accused did not cause his appearance despite the bailable warrant, the learned court found it proper to issue NBW.

¶15

Needless to say that the court issuing NBW is equally responsible to ensure that its order is executed by the executing authority. Non-adherence of the direction of the Court in the judicial side is subject to further action as would be required under the law including the contempt, if any such eventuality arises. Having found that the order of the court in the instant case has not been carried out by the concerned police authority, it was expected that the learned Magistrate should have taken the matter with the higher officials so also with the concerned Chief Judicial Magistrate to be taken up in the police Magistrate’s meeting besides the senior officer’s meeting by the learned District Judge of the concerned district. Perusal of the case record does not reveal any such step to have been taken by the court concerned.

¶16