Orissa High Court
Bijoy Kumar Mohapatra vs Lingaraj Parida ..... Opposite Party on 14 August, 2025
Author: Aditya Kumar Mohapatra
Bench: Aditya Kumar Mohapatra
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
CRLMC No.4906 of 2024
Bijoy Kumar Mohapatra ..... Petitioner
Represented By Adv. -
Mr. Niranjan Panda
-versus-
Lingaraj Parida ..... Opposite Party
Represented By Adv. -
Mr. Kabiraj Pradhan
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR MOHAPATRA
ORDER
14.08.2025
Order No.
07. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement
(Virtual /Physical Mode).
2. Heard Mr. Niranjan Panda, learned counsel for the
Petitioner as well as Mr. Kabiraj Pradhan, learned counsel for
the Opposite Party-Complainant. Perused the application as well
as the prayer made therein.
3. By filing the present application under Section 482 of
Cr.P.C. read with Section 528 of B.N.S.S., 2023, the Petitioner
seeks to quash the entire criminal proceeding in I.C.C. Case
No.46 of 2024 stating that the matter is pending in the court of
learned N.G.N.-cum-J.M.F.C., Tangi, on the ground that the
court lacks jurisdiction to take up the criminal proceeding and
conduct the trial.
4. Mr. Niranjan Panda, learned counsel appearing for the
Petitioner, at the outset, contended that the present application
was filed before this Court on 20.12.2024 and the same was
listed for the first time before the learned coordinate Bench for
admission on 03.01.2025. However, order sheet reveals that an
adjournment was taken on that date. Thereafter, the matter was
listed on 07.01.2025, 30.01.2025 and 06.03.2025, however, no
effective hearing took place on one ground or other.
Nevertheless, it is confirmed that there was no interim order
passed in the present proceeding staying the trial. Subsequently,
vide order dated 11.03.2025, a coordinate Bench of this Court,
after hearing the counsels appearing for both the sides, called for
a report from the learned N.G.N.-cum-J.M.F.C., Tangi in
connection with I.C.C. Case No.46 of 2024 regarding the status
of the case. Thereafter, the matter was again listed on
06.08.2025. Since no report was received from the N.G.N.-cum-
J.M.F.C., Tangi pursuant to order dated 06.08.2025, the entire
record of the I.C.C. Case No.46 of 2024 was called for by this
Court. Today the matter has been listed along with the LCR of
I.C.C. Case No.46 of 2024.
5. In course of his argument, Mr. Niranjan Panda, learned
counsel for the Petitioner, referring to the judgment of the
Calcutta High Court in Bidyut Baran Pal vs The State of West
Bengal & Ors. (FMA No.680 of 2020 decided on 24.06.2021),
contended that in the said judgment, the Calcutta High Court
referred the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in K.
Bhaskaran vs Shankaran, reported in (1999) 7 SCC 510
wherein it has been held that the court should have jurisdiction
to entertain the complaint subject to satisfaction of the following
conditions:-
1. Where cheque is drawn.
2. Where payment had to be made.
3. Where cheque is presented for payment.
4. Where cheque is dishonoured.
5. Where notice is served up to drawer.
Accordingly, it was held in the above noted Calcutta High
Court judgment that the court in Culcutta has jurisdiction to
entertain the complaint. Accordingly, necessary direction was
issued to the Judicial Magistrate concerned for early disposal of
the pending complaint case.
6. Perused the LCR. It appears that the I.C.C. Case No.46 of
2024 was registered on the basis of the complaint basically for
commission of an offence punishable under Section 138 of N.I.
Act. Record reveals that the learned Magistrate had taken
cognizance on 16.08.2024. Thereafter, a B.W. was issued
against the accused on 21.10.2024. Finally, a N.B.W. was
issued on 08.11.2024. Pursuant to the aforesaid N.B.W., the
Petitioner was produced before the learned trial court and vide
order dated 27.11.2024, it appears that the Petitioner was
released on bail. Thereafter, the trial commenced.
7. The trial court record further reveals that the prosecution
examined only one witness, i.e. Complainant as P.W.1 and the
evidence from the prosecution side was closed by examining
only one witness on 13.12.2024. Thereafter, the defence was
called upon to lead their evidence and the defence examined
only one witness. Further, the record reveals that the defence
declined to adduce further evidence which has been recorded
vide order dated 21.12.2024. Thereafter, the matter was posted
for argument. Upon conclusion of the argument, the final
judgment was delivered on 08.01.2025. Thereafter, I.C.C. Case
No.46 of 2024 has ended in the judgment of conviction dated
08.01.2025
8. On a perusal of the record of the present case, it appears
that there is no interim order staying further proceeding before
the learned trial court. In the meantime, the trial has progressed
and the same has culminated in delivery of a judgment on
08.01.2025
9. On a careful scrutiny of the order sheet as well as the
record, it reveals that the trial court has followed the procedure
and not committed any illegality while conducting the trial.
10. With regard to the ground raised by the learned counsel for
the Petitioner that the learned Magistrate has no jurisdiction, as
the cause of action arose in Kolkata and that the case should
have been placed before the learned Magistrate at Kolkata at the
first instance, this Court is of the view that in any case since the
trial has been concluded and the final judgment has been
delivered, the present application under Section 482 of Cr.P.C is
not maintainable.
11. Accordingly, the CRLMC application is disposed of with
liberty to the Petitioner to assail the judgment dated 08.01.2025
passed by the learned N.G.N.-cum-J.M.F.C., Tangi in 1CC Case
No.46 of 2024, if the Petitioner so desires, by filing an
appropriate application as provided in the Criminal Procedure
Code.
12. LCR be returned immediately.
( Aditya Kumar Mohapatra)
Judge
Debasis
