Cuttack: In a stinging indictment of judicial indiscipline, Orissa high court has described a trial court’s refusal to comply with its earlier direction in a cheque dishonour case as judicial ‘harakiri’, warning that such conduct, if tolerated, would erode public confidence in the justice delivery system.Considering a petition filed by the accused and quashing the Jan 12, 2026 order of the judicial magistrate first class (JMFC), Jajpur Road, Justice V Narasingh observed that while subordinate courts are free to exercise their jurisdiction independently, they cannot ignore binding directions issued by superior courts.“The edifice of the judiciary rests upon a hierarchical system. There is no embargo or fetter on subordinate courts to exercise their jurisdiction independently in accordance with law… However, subordinate courts cannot disregard or act in defiance of a direction issued by a superior court,” the judge said in the July 30 order.The high court further observed that permitting such an approach “would undermine public confidence in the administration of justice and erode faith in the justice delivery system”.The case relates to a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act over alleged dishonour of a cheque for Rs 2.5 lakh.Earlier, on a petition filed by the accused the high court had on Dec 2, 2025 directed the trial court to first examine the accused’s contention that the complaint was not maintainable as it had allegedly been filed prematurely under the provision to Section 138(b) of the Act.Instead of deciding that issue, the JMFC rejected the accused’s application, holding that the objection had not been raised earlier and could be considered only at the stage of recording the accused’s statement during trial.Finding the approach legally untenable, Justice Narasingh said, “It was not open for the trial court to reject the application of the petitioner-accused raising the ground of maintainability in the light of the order passed earlier by high court.”The court held that the trial court had committed a “patent breach of judicial discipline” and had “signally failed to understand the import” of the high court’s earlier direction.“This court is constrained to hold that such approach on the part of the trial court amounts to judicial ‘harakiri’ and can never be countenanced,” Justice Narasingh said.Invalidating the order, the high court directed the trial court to first hear and decide the maintainability issue in terms of its Dec 2, 2025 direction before proceeding further in the cheque bounce case. Both parties have been asked to appear before the trial court on Aug 10, with the magistrate directed to endeavour to decide the issue by the end of Aug.
