Aswini Kumar Dash vs Bishnu Prasad Padhi & .... Opposite ...
2025 Latest Caselaw 1088 Ori

Orissa High Court

Aswini Kumar Dash vs Bishnu Prasad Padhi & .... Opposite ... on 10 July, 2025

Author: R.K. Pattanaik

Bench: R.K. Pattanaik

                 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

                             CRLREV No.177 of 2025

            Aswini Kumar Dash                  ....                  Petitioner
                                                                    In Person

                                        -Versus-

            Bishnu Prasad Padhi &             ....           Opposite Parties
            others
                                                       Mr. P.K. Swain, AGA

                      CORAM:
                      MR. JUSTICE R.K. PATTANAIK

                                       ORDER

10.07.2025 Order No.

02. 1. Heard the petitioner in person and Mr. Swain, learned AGA for the State.

2. No notices have been issued to the private opposite parties considering the limited grievance of the petitioner.

3. Instant revision is filed by the petitioner for a direction to the learned S.D.J.M., Sambalpur to proceed with the complaint in terms of Section 223 BNSS for the ends of justice.

4. Referring to a copy of the judgment in appeal at Annexure-2 and facts pleaded on record, the petitioner submits that the manipulation was carried out before the Court of learned District Judge, Sambalpur at the time when R.F.A. No.7 of 2018 was pending disposal and therefore, the

complaint was filed but instead of holding an inquiry to the same, learned Court below directed police investigation. The further submission is that since the manipulation is in respect of the official record, it was not necessary for learned SDJM, Sambalpur to direct such police investigation exercising powers under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. but to take cognizance of the complaint and to proceed to deal with the same under Section 223 BNSS.

5. Recorded the submission of Mr. Swain, learned AGA for the State, namely, opposite party No.5.

6. In fact, opposite party Nos.1 to 4 are the accused persons against whom the complaint is filed by the petitioner alleging manipulation in official record. With such allegation having been made by the petitioner, the complaint was filed but the claim is that it should have been inquired into by learned SDJM, Sambalpur instead of a direction for police investigation. The Court finds that the alleged manipulation is of the official record is in respect of the appeal proceeding while pending before the learned District Judge, Sambalpur. The details of the manipulation and fraud stands described in the complaint, a copy of which is at Annexure-1. According to the Court any such mischief alleged to have been committed by opposite party Nos.1 to 4, it needs a thorough police investigation. In other words, the Court is of the view that learned SDJM, Sambalpur did not commit any wrong or error

while exercising power under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. upon receiving the complaint i.e. Annexure-1 in view of the nature of allegation made therein. In other words, the Court is not inclined to interfere and intervene with the impugned decision and to direct the learned Court below to hold inquiry by itself on the complaint in terms of Section 223 BNSS when the nature of manipulation or fraud alleged of any such official record needs a proper police investigation.

7. Accordingly, it is ordered.

8. In the result, the CRLREV stands disposed of with the observation as aforesaid.

9. Issue urgent certified copy of this order as per rules.

(R.K. Pattanaik) Judge Balaram

Designation: Personal Assistant