Orissa HC Finds IIC Guilty of Contempt for Falsely Denying Receipt of Non-Bailable Warrant, Accepts Unconditional Apology

The Orissa High Court held the IIC of Bisra Police Station guilty of contempt after he falsely told the court no non-bailable warrant had been received, then accepted his unconditional apology and directed the DGP, Odisha to ensure police compliance with judicial orders across the State.

A suo motu contempt proceeding initiated by the Orissa High Court against Manoranjan Kumbhar, the Inspector-in-Charge (IIC) of Bisra Police Station, Rourkela, ended on 12 June 2026 with a finding of guilt but no punishment. Justice Savitri Ratho, sitting singly at Cuttack, held that Kumbhar had sent incorrect instructions to the Advocate General's office — denying that any non-bailable warrant (NBW) had been received against accused Mehmud Khan @ Chhotu — when the warrant had in fact been received at the police station as far back as 24 July 2025. The court accepted his unconditional apology but warned that any future default would not be overlooked. It also directed the Director General of Police, Odisha and the Superintendent of Police, Sundargarh to ensure that IICs across the State comply with orders of Magistrates and other judicial officers.

How the Contempt Proceeding Arose

The underlying criminal case is 1CC Case No. 09 of 2023 before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class (JMFC), Rajgangpur. The accused, Mehmud Khan @ Chhotu, had initially appeared through counsel after summons were served, but repeatedly filed time petitions. His application under Section 205 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was rejected on 3 October 2024. A bailable warrant was sent to Bisra Police Station on 5 December 2024. Despite reminders on 4 February 2025 and 7 May 2025, neither was the warrant executed nor any report submitted by the police station.

On 10 July 2025, the JMFC recalled the earlier bail order and issued a non-bailable warrant against the accused, directing the case to be posted on 1 December 2025. The NBW was dispatched to Bisra Police Station by registered post, and the acknowledgement was received back with the police station's seal on 24 July 2025. Yet the NBW was not executed. The case was adjourned on 1 December 2025, then again on 12 January 2026 to 13 March 2026, as the warrant remained unexecuted.

One Md. Rashid @ Rashid Quraishi filed CRLMP No. 393 of 2026 before the High Court complaining of this inaction. When the matter came up on 6 April 2026, the learned Additional Standing Counsel placed instructions dated 6 April 2026 from the IIC, Bisra Police Station, stating that no NBW had been received against the accused in 1CC Case No. 09 of 2023. The High Court directed its Registry to call for a report from the JMFC.

The JMFC's report, received on 15 April 2026, confirmed that the NBW had been sent by registered post and the acknowledgement had come back with the police station's seal. The court then directed the IIC to file an affidavit explaining the contradiction.

The IIC's Affidavit and the Court's Rejection of His Explanation

Kumbhar filed an affidavit dated 1 May 2026 in CRLMP No. 393 of 2026. In paragraph 4 of that affidavit he stated that the NBW had indeed been received but had been “inadvertently misplaced at the station” and that he had submitted incorrect instructions to the Advocate General's office “under a wrong impression.”

On 6 May 2026, the High Court passed an order in CRLMP No. 393 of 2026 observing that the IIC had sent incorrect instructions, misled the court, and interfered in the administration of justice. The Registry was directed to register a suo motu contempt proceeding. CONTC No. 2824 of 2026 was accordingly registered.

When the contempt matter was heard on 20 May 2026, Kumbhar appeared in person and filed a further affidavit. He stated that the NBW had been received on 24 July 2025 by a Home Guard, Shri Ghanashyam Nayak, who had placed it in the dak file by mistake. He begged unconditional apology.

Justice Ratho rejected this explanation. The court observed that more than one and a half years had elapsed since the NBW was received. A dak file would have been opened on numerous occasions during that period, and the warrant would have been discovered. The court also pointed out that separate registers are maintained in police stations for dak and for NBWs. The explanation that the NBW was misplaced in the dak file did not, in the court's view, inspire confidence.

The court also noted an internal inconsistency in Kumbhar's contempt affidavit: paragraph 8 incorrectly stated that he had submitted in his reply affidavit that no NBW had been issued, whereas what he had actually told the Advocate General's office was that no NBW had been received. The court found the IIC had been “extremely casual and careless” in sending instructions that were placed before the High Court.

The Court's Broader Concern About Police Non-Compliance

Justice Ratho used the occasion to record a wider concern. Having been assigned CRLMPs arising out of criminal cases under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, she stated that she had come across numerous cases where IICs of police stations across Odisha showed “scant regard for judicial orders and directions,” forcing aggrieved persons to approach the High Court.

The court identified two recurring patterns. First, orders passed by Magistrates under Section 156(3) of the CrPC and Section 175(4) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) directing police stations to register cases and submit reports are routinely ignored: either no case is registered, or if registered, no report is submitted, causing repeated adjournments. Second, in maintenance proceedings — formerly under Section 125 CrPC, now under Section 144 of the BNSS — distress warrants and conditional NBWs issued by Magistrates and Family Court Judges for enforcement of maintenance orders are not executed, and no communication is sent to the court explaining the difficulty.

The court observed that the High Court is not the executing court for orders of Magistrates or District Judiciary judges. But because local police fail to act or even respond, aggrieved persons flood the High Court with petitions. The court also noted that NBWs are not issued routinely — they are issued in cases involving serious allegations or where the accused is evading process — and that police inaction prevents courts from taking further steps such as proclamation or attachment of property.

The Supreme Court Precedent Cited

Justice Ratho referred to the Supreme Court's recent decision in Bharat Kumar Badlani v. Seema Chaudhury, 2026 INSC 606, which held that contempt of court orders “strikes at the very foundation of the rule of law and the authority of the judiciary” and that when public functionaries defy judicial orders, it erodes citizens' confidence in the legal system. The same decision also cautioned that the power to punish for contempt must be exercised “with restraint, discretion, and a regard for the ends of justice,” and that punishment is a means to secure compliance and uphold the court's dignity, not an end in itself.

Finding of Guilt and Acceptance of Apology

Justice Ratho held that Manoranjan Kumbhar, IIC, Bisra Police Station, was guilty of committing contempt of court. The court found that without verifying the record, he had the audacity to send instructions to the court denying receipt of the NBW, demonstrating scant regard for the directions of both the JMFC and the High Court.

However, the court noted that it had not been brought to its notice that Kumbhar was in the habit of ignoring court orders. He had tendered an unconditional apology, appeared in person, and had already taken remedial steps: after discovering the warrant had been misplaced, he had applied before the JMFC on 22 April 2026 for a fresh NBW, which was executed on 28 April 2026. The court accepted the unconditional apology and declined to impose punishment.

The court was explicit that acceptance of the apology was not an approval of his conduct. It warned that any default or negligence in complying with orders of the High Court or any other court in future would not be viewed kindly or overlooked.

Order

The suo motu contempt, CONTC No. 2824 of 2026, was disposed of on 12 June 2026. The Registry was directed to communicate a copy of the order forthwith to the Superintendent of Police, Sundargarh and the Director General of Police, Odisha. The DGP was directed to ensure that Superintendents of Police and Commissioners instruct the IICs of police stations under their jurisdiction to carry out the orders and directions of Magistrates and other judicial officers, so that litigants do not have to approach the High Court with CRLMPs complaining of police inaction.