Facts: Integro Finserv Private Limited filed an Execution Application No. 853 of 2015. A non-bailable warrant was issued against Respondent No. 2, Santoshkumar Ramsajeevan Dewivedi, but it could not be executed because the respondent had moved to Varanasi, Uttar Pradesh. The registry submitted a report detailing the repeated attempts to serve the warrant, including sending reminders to the Senior Inspector of Police in Varanasi. Despite these efforts, no execution report was received. The court noted that the Execution Application has been pending since 2015.
Procedural Posture: The case is before the High Court of Judicature at Bombay in its Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction. The court is addressing the execution of a non-bailable warrant issued in connection with an Execution Application. The Additional Solicitor General was requested to assist the court due to the long pendency of the execution and the difficulties in executing warrants outside Maharashtra.
Issue: What is the procedure for executing warrants, particularly non-bailable warrants, outside the local jurisdiction of the issuing court, and what measures can be taken to expedite the execution of long-pending Execution Applications?
Holding: The court directed the issuance of a fresh non-bailable warrant against Respondent No. 2 and instructed the registry to forward it to the Commissioner of Police, Varanasi, for execution. The court also requested the Additional Solicitor General to suggest measures to expedite the execution of bailable and non-bailable warrants against judgment debtors, given the large number of pending Execution Applications.
Reasoning: The court referred to the provisions of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 ("BNSS"), specifically Sections 72, 74, 76, 79, and 80, which outline the procedure for issuing and executing warrants. Section 80 of BNSS is particularly relevant, as it addresses the execution of warrants outside the local jurisdiction of the issuing court, allowing the court to forward the warrant to an Executive Magistrate or District Superintendent of Police or Commissioner of Police in the relevant jurisdiction for execution. The court also cited the Supreme Court's direction in Periyammal (Dead Through LRs) & Ors. vs. V. Rajamani & Anr. to dispose of Execution Applications within six months, highlighting the need for expeditious resolution of these matters.