1 2026:CGHC:23203-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPCR No. 289 of 2026 Suresh Atlani S/o Late Golaram Atlani Aged About 66 Years R/o- Atlani Villa, Khamardih Road, Khamardih, District- Raipur, C.G. (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, C.G. 2 - Director General Of Police Dgp Chhattisgarh, Having Office At- Police Head Quarters (Phq), Nava Raipur - Atal Nagar, District- Raipur (C.G.) 3 - Commissioner Of Police Police Commissionerate Raipur, Having Office At C-3, Civil Lines, District- Raipur, (C.G.) 4 - Station House Office Police Station- New Rajendra Nagar, District- Raipur, C.G. 5 - Vijay Nagpure S/o Shri Mukundrao Nagpure R/o Kalpvriksh Resort And Villas, Village- Kolar, Tehsil- Abhanpur District- Raipur, C.G. And Resident Of Telghani Naka, District- Raipur (C.G.) (Accused Person In Instant Complaint Case)(Details Of Respondent 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 20:56:04 +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, casual 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. 2594 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, issuance of arrest warrants and permanent arrest warrant, and despite declaration of respondent No.5 as an 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 and frustrating the petitioner’s right to speedy trial guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. 3. The petitioner has filed the present petition with the following prayer:- “I. That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be 3 pleased to call for the entire records pertaining to Petitioner’s case vis-à-vis Complaint Case No. 2594 of 2015 before the Learned Court of 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. 2594 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 4 pleased to impose cost on the erring Respondents and further provide cost of the petition; 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. 2594 of 2015 under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act alleging dishonour of cheque amounting to Rs.4 Crores 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 learned trial Court on several occasions resulting in issuance of permanent arrest warrant against him even earlier on 19.09.2019. Though the accused had subsequently appeared on 04.03.2021 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 against him. Thereafter, on 01.09.2025, as the warrant remained unserved and the accused continued to remain absent, the 5 learned trial Court declared respondent No.5 as an absconder and issued permanent arrest warrant against him. According to the petitioner, despite repeated directions issued by the learned trial Court and despite representations/applications submitted by the petitioner before the respondent police authorities, including communication dated 22.04.2026, no effective or concrete steps have been taken to execute the permanent arrest warrant and secure the presence of respondent No.5, thereby causing prolonged delay in conclusion of the complaint proceedings pending since the year 2015. 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 since the year 2015. It has been argued that the repeated absence of the accused, particularly at the stage of pronouncement of judgment, and the continued failure of the respondent police authorities to execute the permanent arrest warrant have rendered the petitioner’s right to speedy trial illusory and ineffective. 7. It has further been argued that despite repeated judicial orders passed by the learned trial Court and despite specific information having been furnished by the petitioner regarding the whereabouts, business activities and criminal antecedents of respondent No.5, the respondent police authorities have adopted a completely casual, perfunctory, mechanical and lackadaisical approach in the matter. Learned counsel would submit that even the reply submitted by the 6 concerned police authorities before the learned trial Court merely stating inability to trace the accused reflects total non-application of mind and dereliction of duty. It has been contended that the conduct of the respondent police authorities prima facie indicates connivance and hands-in-glove approach with the accused person and, therefore, appropriate directions deserve to be issued by this Court for immediate execution of the permanent arrest warrant and for taking suitable 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 against respondent No.5. It has been submitted that the concerned police authorities visited the known addresses and places allegedly associated with respondent No.5 and also made enquiries from his relatives and acquaintances, however, his whereabouts could not be traced out and, therefore, the warrant could not be executed. 9. Learned State counsel would further submit that merely because respondent No.5 could not be apprehended despite efforts undertaken by the police authorities, no mala fide, arbitrariness or connivance can be attributed to the respondent authorities. It has been argued that proceedings in accordance with law, including coercive measures pursuant to issuance of permanent arrest warrant, are already underway before the learned trial Court for securing the presence of the accused person and, therefore, no 7 further interference by this Court in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is warranted at this stage. 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. 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. 8 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