JAMMU, OCT 21: Taking serious exception to the failure to execute a bailable warrant, the Fast Track Court, Jammu, has sought explanations from two police officials, making it clear that informing a person through WhatsApp messages or telephone calls cannot be treated as a substitute for executing a court-issued warrant in accordance with the law.
Presiding Officer Amarjeet Singh Langeh expressed surprise over the report submitted by the executing police official, which stated that the prosecutrix had been informed telephonically and through WhatsApp about the requirement to appear before the court. The court observed that such informal communication did not fulfil the legally prescribed procedure for execution of a warrant of arrest.
“Information through informal electronic transmissions via WhatsApp is not substitute for legally mandated mode of execution of warrant of arrest,” the court observed, underlining the importance of compliance with judicial directions.
The matter arises from a criminal case registered under FIR Number 134/2019 at Police Station Nowabad, Jammu, involving alleged offences under Sections 376 and 420 of the Ranbir Penal Code (RPC).
According to the court proceedings, the prosecutrix had failed to appear despite service, following which a bailable warrant of ₹10,000 was issued on July 8, 2026. As the warrant remained unreturned, fresh warrants were ordered on subsequent dates, including September 11, 2026.
When the matter came up on October 21, the prosecution produced the unexecuted warrant before the court. The accompanying report stated that the executing official had contacted the prosecutrix through WhatsApp messages and telephone calls. The report had also been endorsed by the Incharge of Police Post Canal Road, Jammu.
Taking note of the circumstances, the court directed the Station House Officer (SHO), Police Station Nowabad, to obtain explanations from executing official SGCT Shiv Kumar and the Incharge of Police Post Canal Road. The officials have been asked to explain why disciplinary proceedings should not be recommended against them for their prima facie approach, which the court found contrary to the legal procedure governing the execution of warrants.
The court further ordered the issuance of a fresh bailable warrant of ₹10,000 against the prosecutrix, directing the SHO, Police Station Nowabad, to execute it and have it transmitted through the prosecution.
The matter has been listed for prosecution evidence on November 27, 2026.
The court’s observations highlight the distinction between merely communicating a judicial direction and legally complying with it. The proceedings also reinforce the obligation of police officials entrusted with executing court orders to follow the prescribed legal process and ensure that their reports accurately reflect the action taken.
