ORDER : 1. The petitioner is aggrieved of the order dated 02.08.2014 by which non-bailable warrant of arrest has been issued and the order dated 18.06.2015 by which process under section 82 Cr.P.C and the order dated 28.07.2016 by which process under section 83 Cr.P.C have been issued against the petitioner. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in a case instituted under section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881, which is a summons case, without a report on service of summons/bailable warrant of arrest, non-bailable warrant of arrest has been issued against the petitioner on 02.08.2014. 3. The exercise of powers under section 73 Cr.P.C ensues serious consequences. One of the effects is that liberty of an accused as guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India is curtailed. The Magistrate is therefore under a duty to apply his mind on the materials produced before him before he takes a decision to order issuance of non-bailable warrant of arrest against an accused. No doubt many a times the order by which non-bailable warrant of arrest has been issued does not record all material facts, however, in every case it is not necessary that the court must interfere with such order. Conduct of an accused and the materials produced on record if indicate that an accused has been purposely and intentionally evading the process of the court, the orders passed under section 73 Cr.P.C or section 82 Cr.P.C or for that matter under section 83 Cr.P.C does not warrant interference of the Court in exercise of powers under section 482 Cr.P.C. It is only when the judicial conscience of the Court is satisfied that if the order by which process against an accused has been issued is not interfered by the Court it would result in serious prejudice to an accused, the orders under section 73 Cr.P.C/section 82 Cr.P.C/section 83 Cr.P.C can be interfered by the Court. 4. The petitioner is an accused for the offence punishable under section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881. The proceeding in the complaint case being C.P. Case No. 1271 of 2011 does not disclose that before non-bailable warrant of arrest was issued against the petitioner, a report on service of summons/bailable warrant of arrest was produced before the Magistrate. 4. The petitioner is an accused for the offence punishable under section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881. The proceeding in the complaint case being C.P. Case No. 1271 of 2011 does not disclose that before non-bailable warrant of arrest was issued against the petitioner, a report on service of summons/bailable warrant of arrest was produced before the Magistrate. Keeping in view the nature of the allegation levelled against the petitioner in the complaint case and the fact that there was no report on service of summons/bailable warrant of arrest before the Magistrate, it cannot be concluded that the petitioner has been evading arrest or concealing herself so that non-bailable warrant of arrest is not executed. 5. Viewed thus and for the reasons indicated hereinabove, finding serious infirmity in the approach of the learned Magistrate, the order dated 02.08.2014 by which non-bailable warrant of arrest has been issued against the petitioner is quashed. Consequently, the order dated 18.06.2015 by which process under section 82 Cr.P.C and the order dated 28.07.2016 by which process under section 83 Cr.P.C have been issued are also quashed. 6. In the result, Cr.M.P. No. 3943 of 2018 stands allowed, however, the petitioner shall positively appear before the court concerned on the next date of hearing. 7. Let a copy of the order be transmitted to the court concerned through FAX.