Orissa HC Awards Rs 30,000 Compensation After Forged Non-Bailable Warrant With Counterfeit Court Seal Led to Man's Illegal Arrest

A man was arrested on a forged NBW bearing a counterfeit court seal; the Orissa High Court has ordered twin enquiries and awarded interim compensation recoverable from responsible police officials.

The High Court of Orissa at Cuttack has directed simultaneous enquiries by the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate (S.D.J.M.), Bhubaneswar and the Deputy Commissioner of Police (DCP), Cuttack Urban Police Division into the arrest of Bikram Mohapatra, who was detained on the basis of what the court found to be a forged non-bailable warrant bearing a counterfeit seal of the court. Justice R.K. Pattanaik, sitting singly, disposed of CRLMP No.790 of 2026 on 23 July 2026, awarding a provisional compensation of Rs 30,000 to the petitioner for his illegal arrest and detention. The order makes clear that recovery of this sum shall be from the police officials or staff found responsible, subject to the outcome of the twin enquiries.

The Grievance Before the High Court

Bikram Mohapatra filed the criminal miscellaneous petition seeking a direction to opposite party No.3 to act upon a report he had lodged (Annexure-3) and to award compensation for illegal detention, torture, and assault by the police while in custody. The arrest, he said, was made on the strength of a warrant of arrest at Annexure-1 bearing the court seal, purportedly issued in connection with C.T. Case No.1209 of 2001 pending before the learned S.D.J.M., Bhubaneswar.

After his arrest, Mohapatra lodged a complaint with opposite party No.3. He also approached opposite party No.2, the DCP, Cuttack UPD, through a separate representation at Annexure-5. Counsel for the petitioner, Mr. R.K. Routray, argued that the warrant was fraudulently issued at the behest of local police, specifically the investigating officer concerned, and pressed for both punitive action against the police and payment of compensation for the detention and alleged assault within the premises of the court of the learned S.D.J.M. at the time of production.

What the S.D.J.M.'s Report and the Police Affidavit Revealed

On 7 July 2026, this Court had directed opposite party No.3 to file an affidavit and had called upon the learned S.D.J.M., Bhubaneswar to submit a report. Both compliances were placed before the court on 23 July 2026.

The S.D.J.M.'s report, filed at Flag-10, was unambiguous. Register R-10 showed that no non-bailable warrant dated 20 November 2024 was ever issued against the petitioner. The petitioner was neither an accused nor the informant in the case. The report further noted that the case had been registered as a G.R. case in 2001, not as a C.T. case, yet the forged warrant was shown as having been issued in C.T. Case No.1209 of 2001.

The compliance affidavit filed by opposite party No.3 at Flag-15 told a different part of the story. It stated that the police station received a photocopy of a warrant of arrest along with other documents through Speed Post and proceeded on that basis. A General Diary entry (G.D. Entry No.10) and the FIR in Lalbag P.S. Case No.241 of 2026 were annexed to the affidavit. The affidavit claimed that the forged NBW bearing a counterfeit court seal had been received through Speed Post and was subsequently executed, and attributed any delay in registering a case on the petitioner's complaint to an ongoing enquiry.

The Court's Reading of the Materials

Justice Pattanaik went through the case diary placed before the court by the learned Additional Government Advocate, Ms. Babita Sahu, for the State. He observed that the S.D.J.M.'s report and the police affidavit together established that “someone played mischief in the issuance of NBW/A” which led to the arrest and, admittedly, to the illegal detention of the petitioner.

The court did not accept the police's claim that responsibility lay entirely outside the police station. Because the forged warrant had been executed without adequate verification, and because the S.D.J.M.'s own records confirmed that no such warrant was ever issued, the court was satisfied that a further enquiry by the learned S.D.J.M., Bhubaneswar was necessary to identify who engineered the mischief. At the same time, a separate and “threadbare enquiry” by opposite party No.2 — the DCP, Cuttack UPD — was considered essential to examine the conduct of the police station that received and executed the counterfeit warrant.

On the question of compensation, the court found illegal arrest and detention “prima facie proved considering the materials on record.” It therefore awarded Rs 30,000 provisionally, while making the actual recovery conditional on the result of the enquiries and tying it to whichever police officials or staff of the police station concerned or the court below were found responsible.

Directions Issued

Justice Pattanaik issued the following directions before disposing of the petition:

• The learned S.D.J.M., Bhubaneswar is directed to hold an enquiry into the issuance of the forged NBW and to take necessary action in that regard.
• Opposite party No.2 (DCP, Cuttack UPD) is directed to conduct a threadbare enquiry into the arrest of the petitioner on the basis of the non-bailable warrant received by the police station concerned bearing the counterfeit seal, followed by a decision and action in accordance with law.
• Compensation of Rs 30,000 is awarded to the petitioner for his illegal arrest and detention, recoverable from the police officials or staff found responsible — either at the police station or the court below — subject to the outcome of both enquiries.
• A copy of the order is to be communicated to the court below for compliance.
• A free copy is to be handed over to the learned AGA for onward intimation to opposite party Nos.2 and 3.

Outcome

CRLMP No.790 of 2026 stands disposed of. The petition was filed by Bikram Mohapatra through counsel Mr. R.K. Routray; the State was represented by Ms. Babita Sahu, AGA. The directions for enquiry by the S.D.J.M. and the DCP, and the conditional compensation award, give both the judicial and police limbs a defined role in determining where accountability for the forged warrant lies.