Non-bailable warrants should be issued judiciously and in accordance with procedural requirements to avoid arbitrary infringement of personal liberty.

JUDGMENT :

S.K. Panigrahi, J.

1. The Petitioners through this Petition have assailed the illegality and abuse of process of law perpetrated by the Opposite Party No.7 in entangling the Petitioners and its Directors in false and frivolous complaint cases instituted in the Court of the learned J.M.F.C., Panchkula. The Petitioners also simultaneously seek a direction to the learned S.D.J.M.(Sadar), Cuttack to expedite the hearing of I.C.C. Case No.117 of 2018 pending in his file as the outcome of which will establish the crime committed by the Opposite Party No.7 in instituting false criminal complaint cases with the sole intention to cause harassment and by means of extortion from the present Petitioners by intentionally playing fraud and securing orders from Court by suppressing material facts before the Court of law.

I. FACTUAL MATRIX OF THE CASE

2. The Petitioner No.1 is a company duly incorporated under the Companies Act in the name and style of M/s. Bharat Salt and Chemicals Ind. Ltd. having its registered Office at Chhatra Bazar in Cuttack city and Petitioner Nos.2 to 4 are its Directors who are also residing and carrying on its business at Cuttack.

3. The Petitioners were having trading terms with the Opposite Party No.7 and in course of such business, had indented for and procured materials manufactured by the Opposite Party No.7 for which it had tendered two cheques i.e. cheque No.021834 dated 25.08.2017 and No.021801 drawn in Bank of India, Ranihat Branch, Cuttack dated 11.07.2017 for Rs.1,05,779/- and dated 11.07.2017 for Rs.3,17,656 respectively through its logistic partner M/s. VRL Logistics Ltd.

4. There were disputes with regard to the quality of the goods for which the Petitioners instructed the Opposite Party No. 7 not to encash the cheques. Despite such express instructions, the Opposite Party No.7 presented the cheques in question and the same were dishonored with the endorsement that ’funds insufficient’. Even though the Petitioners had instructed its bankers to refer to them in case the cheques were being presented. The banks obviously did not follow the instructions of the Petitioners.

5. The Opposite Party No.7, in the meantime, issued notices as contemplated under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter referred to as “the N.I. Act” for brevity). In response, the Petitioners transferred the cheque value amounting to Rs.1,05,779/- which is in respect of one of the cheques by NEFT mode of transfer dated 09.11.2017 for Rs.50,000/- and on 12.12.2017 for Rs.55,779/- the said amount has duly been credited to the account of Opposite Party No.7. As regards the face value of the second cheque, the Petitioners made payment of Rs.1,00,000/- in equal installments of Rs.50,000/- each through NEFT mode of transfer dated 18.09.2017 and 10.10.2017 and wrote to the Opposite Party No.7 that the entire amount was firstly not payable due to defect in goods supplied by them and secondly there was material alteration in the cheque in question wherein the dates of the cheque had been mischievously altered thereby causing forgery to the negotiable instrument. It is extremely important to state here that by materially altering the date of the cheque the Opposite Party No.7 had revalidated an invalid negotiable instrument.

6. Despite the communications and payments made by the Petitioners, and suppressing the same, the Opposite Party No.7 proceeded to initiate NACT Case No. 44 of 2018 and NACT Case No. 45 of 2018 in the Court of the Learned J.M.F.C., Panchkula. In the meantime, having noticed the material alteration in the