ORDER

R. Basant , J.—Can the pace of execution proceedings before the Family Courts under Section 125, Cr.P.C., be quickened? Should warrants both under Sections 421(1)(a) and 421(1)(b), Cr.P.C., be issued invariably in every case before a sentence of imprisonment is imposed under Section 125(3), Cr.P.C., for recovery of the amount payable? Is it the law that the Courts, even after being satisfied that the defaulter has no movable or immovable property, must ritualistically issue warrants both under Sections 421(1)(a) and 421(1)(b), Cr.P.C., and wait for the return of both warrants before passing an order imposing sentence under Section 125(3), Cr.P.C.? Do the decisions in Nithiyanandan v. Radhamani1 and Kuttappan v. Vijayanma2 insist on inflexible adherence to such a procedure? These questions of relevance have come up for consideration before me in this R.P. (FC).

2. My experience in this jurisdiction shows that there is lot of avoidable unnecessary delay in the expeditious execution of orders under Section 125(3), Cr.P.C. and it is hence that I wanted these aspects to be argued in detail. Both counsel have helped this court to consider these questions. Advocate Mr. K.P. Sudheer