1 2026:CGHC:23202-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPCR No. 288 of 2026 Kanchan Atlani W/o Suresh Atlani Aged About 65 Years R/o Atlani Villa, Khamardih Road, Khamardih, District Raipur Chhattisgarh (Complainant In Complaint Case) (Erroneously Mentioned Without Age In Annexure P/5) ... Petitioner versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Home Department, Having Office At Mahanadi Bhawan, Nava Raipur Atal Nagar, District Raipur Chhattisgarh 2 - Director General Of Police D.G.P. Chhattisgarh, Having Office At Police Head Quarter (P.H.Q.), Nava Raipur Atal Nagar, District Raipur Chhattisgarh 3 - Commissioner Of Police Police Commissionerate Raipur, Having Office At C-3, Civil Lines, District Raipur Chhattisgarh 4 - Station House Officer Police Station Abhanpur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh 5 - Vijay Nagpure S/o Shri Mukundrao Nagpure R/o Kalpvriksh Resort And Villas, Village Kolar, Tehsil - Abhanpur District Raipur Chhattisgarh And R/o Telghani Naka, District Raipur Chhattisgarh (Accused Person In Instant Complaint Case) (Details Of Resp. No. 5 As Mentioned In Annexure P/5) ... Respondents (Cause title taken from Case Information System) VED PRAKASH DEWANGAN Digitally signed by VED PRAKASH DEWANGAN Date: 2026.05.15 20:59:36 +0530 2 For Petitioner : Mr. Trivikram Nayak, Advocate For Respondents/State : Mr. Priyank Rathi, Govt. Advocate Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri R avindra Kumar Agrawal , Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 15/05/2026 1. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as learned counsel appearing for the respondents/State. 2. The present writ petition has been preferred by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India being aggrieved by the alleged inaction and perfunctory approach adopted by the respondent police authorities in execution of the permanent arrest warrant issued against respondent No.5/accused in Complaint Case No. 2593 of 2015 pending before the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Raipur for offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. It has been contended that despite repeated directions issued by the learned trial Court and despite declaration of respondent No.5 as absconder, the respondent police authorities have failed to secure his presence, thereby adversely affecting expeditious disposal of the complaint case pending since the year 2015.. 3. The petitioner has filed the present petition with the following prayer:- “I. That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the entire records pertaining to Petitioner’s case vis-à-vis Complaint Case No. 2593 of 2015 before the Learned Court of 3 Judicial Magistrate First Class, District- Raipur, C.G (Learned Trial Court); II. That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue appropriate Writ(s), Order(s), Direction(s) to the Respondent police authorities to forthwith execute the permanent arrest warrant issued by the competent court against the accused Respondent No. 5 and also ensure that accused’s / Respondent No. 5’s presence is secured in the matter at hand vis-à-vis in Complaint Case No. 2593 of 2015 before the competent court vis-à-vis Learned Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, District- Raipur, C.G; III. That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue appropriate Writ(s), Order(s), Direction(s) to ensure and safeguard the right to speedy trial of Petitioner by directing the respondent police authorities to secure the presence of accused vis-à-vis Respondent No. 5 in the matter at hand; IV. That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue appropriate Writ(s), Order(s), Direction(s) to take suitable action against erring respondent police authorities for adopting a completely mechanical, perfunctory, cavalier and casual approach and the inaction and failure on their part to comply with the direction of the Learned Trial Court to execute the permanent arrest warrant; V. That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to impose cost on the erring Respondents and further provide cost of the petition; 4 VI. That, this Hon’ble Court may grant any other relief in favour of the Petitioner, which it deems fit in the facts and circumstances of the case, in the interest of Justice.” 4. Facts of the case, in brief, are that the petitioner had instituted Complaint Case No. 2593 of 2015 under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act alleging dishonour of cheque amounting to Rs.1 Crore issued by respondent No.5 pursuant to a settlement agreement dated 27.06.2015. The complaint was filed on 01.10.2015 before the learned JMFC, Raipur and during the pendency of the proceedings, respondent No.5 allegedly remained continuously absent before the trial Court on several occasions resulting in issuance of permanent arrest warrant against him even earlier on 16.03.2020. Though the accused had appeared subsequently and was enlarged on bail, again he allegedly remained absent during the course of trial and repeatedly sought adjournments at the stage of final arguments. 5. It has further been stated that after completion of evidence and hearing of final arguments, the matter was reserved for pronouncement of judgment on 24.07.2025, however, respondent No.5 again failed to appear before the learned trial Court. Consequently, his bail bonds were cancelled and arrest warrant was issued. Thereafter, on 01.09.2025, as the warrant remained unserved and the accused continued to remain absent, the learned trial Court declared respondent No.5 as absconder and issued permanent arrest warrant against him. According to the petitioner, despite repeated directions by the learned trial Court and representations 5 made by the petitioner before the police authorities, no effective steps have been taken to execute the permanent warrant and secure presence of respondent No.5. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the conduct of respondent No.5 clearly demonstrates deliberate evasion of the judicial process and intentional obstruction in conclusion of the criminal trial pending pending for more than a decade.. It has been argued that the repeated absence of the accused at the stage of pronouncement of judgment and the continued failure of the police authorities to execute the permanent arrest warrant has rendered the petitioner’s right to speedy trial illusory and ineffective. 7. It has further been argued that despite repeated judicial orders and despite specific information having been furnished by the petitioner regarding whereabouts and criminal antecedents of respondent No.5, the respondent police authorities have adopted a completely casual, perfunctory and mechanical approach in the matter. Learned counsel submits that the conduct of the police authorities indicates clear dereliction of duty and apparent connivance with the accused person and, therefore, appropriate directions deserve to be issued by this Court for execution of the permanent arrest warrant and for taking action against the erring police officials. 8. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondents/State would submit that the respondent police authorities have made sincere efforts to execute the permanent arrest warrant issued by the learned trial Court. It has been submitted that several locations 6 suspected to be associated with respondent No.5 were inspected and raids were also conducted, however, the whereabouts of the accused could not be traced out. 9. Learned State counsel would further submit that merely because the accused person could not be apprehended despite efforts made by the police authorities, no mala fide or connivance can be attributed to the respondent authorities. It has been argued that the petitioner already has efficacious remedy before the learned trial Court and appropriate proceedings in accordance with law are already underway for securing the presence of the accused person. 10. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 11. Permanent arrest warrant has already been issued by the learned trial Court against respondent No.5 as the accused is stated to have absconded at the stage of pronouncement of judgment and the petitioner has also moved an application before the learned trial Court seeking status information regarding execution of the permanent arrest warrant issued against the said accused. 12. Learned State counsel submits that the respondent police authorities have made all possible efforts to execute the permanent arrest warrant issued by the learned trial Court and have inspected various locations suspected to be associated with respondent No.5 besides making enquiries from his relatives and acquaintances, however, all such efforts have turned futile and the whereabouts of the accused could not be traced out. 7 13. Considering the fact that the whereabouts of respondent No.5 could not be traced out and permanent arrest warrant has already been issued by the learned trial Court and coercive proceedings are underway for securing his presence, we do not find any good ground warranting interference in the present petition in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Accordingly, the present petition stands dismissed. 14. It is, however, made clear that the petitioner shall be at liberty to pursue such remedy as may be available to him before the learned trial Court, in accordance with law. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice ved