Orissa High Court
Manoj Kumar Dash & Anr vs State Of Odisha & Anr .... Opposite ... on 4 July, 2025
Author: Sashikanta Mishra
Bench: Sashikanta Mishra
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
CRLMC No. 1492 of 2023
(An application under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.)
---------------
Manoj Kumar Dash & Anr ...... Petitioners
-Versus-
State of Odisha & Anr .... Opposite Parties
Advocate(s) appeared in this case:-
_______________________________________________________
For Petitioner : Mr. S.Pattanaik
Advocate.
For Opp. Parties : Mr. C.Mishra, along with
Mr. P.K.Nanda, Advocates
M/S. Wellshown Retail LLP.
_______________________________________________________
CORAM:
JUSTICE SASHIKANTA MISHRA
JUDGMENT
4th July, 2025
I.A. No. 1428 of 2023
SASHIKANTA MISHRA, J.
This is an application filed by M/S Wellshown Retail
LLP represented through its 'Admin' Satish Jha for recall of
the order dated 03.04.2023 passed in the above case. The
original application under Section 482 of the CR.P.C., was
filed by Manoj Kumar Dash and Pintu @ Golak Bihari Dixit
with prayer to quash the proceedings in C.T. Case No. 5993
of 2021 of the Court of learned SDJM, Bhubaneswar
corresponding to Capital P.S. Case No. 687 dated 29.10.2021
for the alleged commission of offence under Sections 420/
427/ 294/328/ 380/506/34 of IPC. Several grounds were
urged to persuade this Court to exercise its power under
Section 482 of Cr.P.C. to quash the proceeding. It would be
apt to mention that the aforesaid case was initiated on the
basis of FIR lodged by one Ashis Tiberwal who was arrayed as
Opposite Party No. 2 in the CRLMC. During pendency of the
case, a joint affidavit for compromise was filed by both
parties stating that they have settled their dispute amicably
and mutually and do not want to proceed further in the case.
A deed of compromise signed by both parties was filed
enclosing the terms of such compromise. This Court heard
the petitioners and the Opposite Party No. 2 in person and
being satisfied that no fruitful purpose would be served by
allowing continuance of the criminal proceeding, allowed the
prayer of the petitioners by quashing the FIR in the
aforementioned case. Such order was passed on 03.04.2023.
On 21.04.2023, the present I.A. was filed seeking recall of
order dated 03.04.2023 on the ground that Opposite Party
No.2 was never authorised by the complainant to act on its
behalf as he had been terminated from service. He was also
never authorised to compromise the dispute but acting
behind the back of the company, he in connivance of the
accused persons, managed to obtain the order of quashment
of the FIR in question.
2. Written objection has been filed by the petitioners inter
alia questioning the maintainability of the petition on the
ground that the same has been filed by one Satish Jha, who
was never a party in the original proceeding and secondly,
the order so passed cannot be recalled in view of the bar
under Section 362 of Cr.P.C.
3. Heard Mr. C.Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner of
the instant I.A. and Mr. S. Pattnaik, learned counsel
appearing for the original petitioners/accused persons.
4. Mr.Mishra would argue that the bar under Section 362
of Cr.P.C. is not absolute as it is the settled position of law
that the Court can always recall its order, if the same is
found to have been obtained by practising fraud. Mr.Mishra
further submits that the Opposite Party No.2 had lodged the
FIR while he was an employee of the company but
subsequently he was terminated from service because of mis-
conduct and as such, he was no longer authorised to act on
behalf of the company.
5. Mr. Pattnaik, on the other hand would argue that unless
fraud is proved the bar under Section 362 always remains.
The petitioner of the instant I.A has not been able to
demonstrate as to how and in what manner fraud was
committed. Mr. Pattnaik further argues that the application
has been filed not by the partners of the company but by the
so- called 'Admin' who may also subsequently be terminated.
6. It is well settled that a criminal Court cannot ordinarily
recall its order in view of the bar under Section 362 of Cr.P.C.
But then it is equally well settled that if fraud is shown to
have been practised, the Court is not powerless to set right
the wrong by recalling its order. But the catch is, fraud must
not only be alleged but proved to satisfaction to have been
practiced. In the instant case, the only thing that is projected
as a ground for recall of order is that Opposite Party No.2
had been terminated by the time he entered into the so-called
compromise. A copy of the termination letter is enclosed to
the I.A., which bears no date, though the person signing it
has endorsed it with date. Further, the termination letter is
addressed to Ashis Tiberwal without specifying his
designation or address. It is difficult to believe that the same
is an official letter.
7. Be that as it may, the present application has been filed by
one Satish Jha. It is not disputed that the firm is a limited
liability partnership comprised of two partners namely,
Sanjaya Sharma and Romit Sharma. The partners have not
come forward to file the petition but an affidavit has been
filed by Sanjaya Sharma stating therein that Satish Jha, one
of the employees of the firm, has been duly authorised to
appear on its behalf. Significantly, the affidavit does not
mention the designation of Satish Jha. The affidavit of Satish
Jha simply states that he is the 'Admin' of Wellshown Retail
LLP. This Court is unable to understand as to what exactly is
meant by the term 'Admin'. So, the exact identity of the
person swearing the affidavit is shrouded with doubts for
which it is difficult to treat him as a person validly authorised
to file the instant I.A.
8. This Court is therefore, not inclined to accept the
contention advanced in the I.A. so as to be persuaded to
recall the order dated 03.04.2023. The I.A. is held to be
devoid of merit and is therefore, dismissed.
...............................
Sashikanta Mishra,
Judge
Orissa High Court, Cuttack,
Deepak
