Orissa High Court
) Pramod Kumar Sahoo vs State Of Odisha ..... Opposite Party on 20 September, 2025
Author: Aditya Kumar Mohapatra
Bench: Aditya Kumar Mohapatra
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
CRLMC No.3592 of 2025
1) Pramod Kumar Sahoo ..... Petitioners
2) Laxmikanta Sahoo Represented By Adv. -
Mr. Sidharth Sankar
Mohapatra
-versus-
State of Odisha ..... Opposite Party
Represented By Adv. -
Ms. Babita Kumari Sahu,
AGA
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR MOHAPATRA
ORDER
20.09.2025
Order No.
01. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement
(Virtual/ Physical Mode).
2. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioners as well as the
learned counsel for the State-Opposite Party. Perused the
application as well as the prayer made therein.
3. By filing the present application, the Petitioners seek
quashing of the order taking cognizance dated 07.02.2022 passed
by the learned J.M.F.C.(R), Cuttack in G.R. Case No.2003 of 2021
as well as the entire criminal proceeding in G.R. Case No.2003 of
2021, arising out of Cuttack Sadar P.S. Case No.494 of 2021,
pending in the court of learned J.M.F.C.(R), Cuttack.
4. The above noted G.R. Case was registered on the basis of the
F.I.R. in Cuttack Sadar P.S. Case No.494 of 2021 for alleged
commission of offences punishable under Sections
465/406/420/294/323/506/379/34 of the I.P.C.
5. Learned counsel for the Petitioners, at the outset, contended
that on a plain reading of the F.I.R., it appears that no offence is
made out against the Petitioners. On such ground, learned counsel
for the Petitioners, referring to the judgment of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in State of Haryana and Ors. v. Ch. Bhajan Lal
and Ors., reported in 1992 AIR 604, submitted that in the larger
interest of justice, it is apposite that the criminal case against the
present Petitioners be quashed.
6. Learned counsel for the State, on the other hand, objected to
the quashing of the entire criminal proceeding and submitted that a
case under the alleged offences is well made out against the
present Petitioners. On such ground, it was contended that the
present application of the Petitioners is devoid of merit and,
accordingly, the same be dismissed.
7. Having heard the learned counsels appearing for the
respective parties and on a careful examination of the background
facts of the present case as well as materials on record, further on a
close scrutiny of the FIR and the allegations made therein, this
Court is of the view that prima facie a case is well made out
against the present Petitioners. However, with regard to the
allegation made against the Petitioners, this Court is of the view
that the grounds raised herein can very well be raised by the
Petitioners at the time of framing of charge by filing a discharge
petition.
8. In such view of the matter, the CRLMC application is being
disposed of by granting liberty to the Petitioners to move an
application before the trial court. In such eventuality, the trial
court shall do well to consider and dispose of such application of
the Petitioners by passing a reasoned order after taking into
consideration the contention raised by the learned counsel for the
Petitioners.
9. With the aforesaid observation and direction, the CRLMC
stands disposed of.
( A.K. Mohapatra )
Judge
Debasis
