P. Bhagavan Reddy vs State Of Orissa .... Opposite Parties on 20 April, 2026

Author: V. Narasingh

Bench: V. Narasingh

               IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

                         CRLREV No.1051 of 2025

   In the matter of an application under Section 401 read
   with Section 397 of Cr.P.C./under Section 442 read with
   438 BNSS, 2023.

  1.

P. Bhagavan Reddy

2. P. Dharma Rao .... Petitioners

-versus-

1. State of Orissa .... Opposite Parties

2. Usharani Padhi

For Petitioners : Mr. B. Nayak, Advocate

For Opposite Parties : Mr. A.K. Pati, ASC Mr. S.K. Baral, Adv.(O.P. No.2)

CORAM:

JUSTICE V. NARASINGH

DATE OF FINAL HEARING : 06.04.2026 DATE OF JUDGMENT : 20.04.2026

V. Narasingh, J. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioners, learned counsel for Opposite Party No.2 and learned counsel for the State.

1. The Petitioners-accused have assailed the order dated 16.09.2025 passed by the learned J.M.F.C (R) Cog. Berhampur in G.R. Case No.396 of 2025 arising out of Gopalpur P.S. Case No.79 of 2025 taking cognizance

of offence under Sections 318(4)/ 296/ 115(2)/ 74/ 351(2)/ 3(5) of BNS.

2. It is the case of the prosecution that the Opposite Party No.2 filed a complaint case against the Petitioner No.1, which was registered as IC.C. Case No.122 of 2024 in the Court of learned S.D.J.M., Berhampur. Thereafter, while the matter stood thus, the Opposite Party No.2 filed an FIR implicating both the Petitioners which was registered as Gopalpur P.S. Case No.79 of 2025 under Sections 318(4)/296/115(2)/74/351(2)/3(5) of BNS. It was alleged by the complainant that the Petitioners had borrowed a sum of Rs.18,00,000/- from the complainant and assured to provide house construction materials, but since they did not pay the same, on 15.09.2024 the Opposite Party No.2 along with her daughter went to their house and asked for the money and, being enraged by that, the Petitioners misbehaved with them. With the intervention of the local gentries, they gave two cheques of the self-same date. But on presentation, both the cheques were dishonoured and thereafter on 18.11.2024, the Opposite Party No.2-

complainant along with her daughter went to the house of the Petitioners, where the Petitioners, who happen to be father and son, abused them in obscene language

and forcefully dragged the complainant by holding her hand.

After investigation, the final form by way of charge sheet was submitted on 12.09.2025 citing the present Petitioners as accused and on the basis of the materials on record, cognizance having been taken by the learned Court in seisin under Sections 318(4)/ 296/ 115(2)/ 74/ 351(2)/ 3(5) of BNS as referred to hereinabove, assailing which the present criminal revision has been filed, as noted.

3. It is the submission of the learned counsel for the Petitioners that admittedly, for dishonour of the cheques, I.C.C Case No.122 of 2024 has been instituted under Section 138 of the N.I. Act by the Opposite Party No.2, which is pending on the file of the learned S.D.J.M., Berhampur and, in essence, the FIR also relates to the accusation which is subject matter of the I.C.C case and hence, the filing of the charge sheet and order taking cognizance primarily for the self-same cause of action being hit by doctrine of double jeopardy is liable to be quashed.

4. It is the further submission of the learned counsel for the Petitioners that even if the prosecution allegations are accepted in their entirety at their face value, no offence under the aforementioned sections,

particularly under Section 318(4) of BNS, is made out and in this context the Petitioner relies on the following judgments;

i. Girija Sankar Mishra and others vs. State of Odisha, 2023(I) OLR 743

ii. G. Sagar Suri and others vs. State of U.P. and others, AIR 2000 SC 754

5. On issuance of notice, Opposite Party No.2 has appeared and it is the submission of the learned counsel for the Opposite Party No.2, Mr. Baral, that there is no irregularity or illegality in the order of cognizance. Hence, the criminal revision is liable to be dismissed.

6. The submission of the learned counsel for the State is also to the said effect.

7. So far as the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of G. Sagar Suri (Supra) on which much reliance has been placed by the learned counsel for the Petitioners is concerned, the same is clearly distinguishable on facts inasmuch as the said case primarily dealt with financial transaction between two companies and liability of the accused therein when they were not in-charge of the company. In fact, the Apex Court noted that "There is no allegation of any corrupt practice by any of the accused as if they duped

the Finance Company in parting with the amount of Rs.50,00,000/-."

It is worth noting, in the reported judgment of G.Sagar Suri (supra), that G.Sagar Suri (first appellant) and his wife Shama Suri (second appellant before the Apex Court), who were not the directors of M/s. Ganga Automobiles Ltd. whose cheques were dishonoured, in such background the Apex Court came to the conclusion on scrutiny of the facts that "There is no allegation of any corrupt practice by any of the accused as if they duped the Finance Company in parting with the amount of Rs.50,00,000/-."

8. It is apt to note that the finance company in question at whose instance the case was filed is M/s. Phoenix International Finance Ltd., NOIDA and taking into account the filing of the case under Section 138 of NI Act, the Apex Court held that continuance of proceedings under Section 406/420 IPC is an abuse of process of law and quashed the proceeding in respect of G. Sagar Suri (appellant No.1) and Shama Suri (appellant No.2). The judgment of this Court relied upon by the learned counsel for the Petitioners, Girija Sankar Mishra (supra), dealt with an FIR against the Petitioners therein for cheating of an amount of Rs.1.20 crores.

9. Considering the principle that cheques in the said reported case were dishonoured due to insufficient funds and there being no material on record to indicate that the Petitioners therein had the mens rea from the very beginning for commission of offence, inter alia, under Section 420 IPC, this Court was persuaded to quash the proceeding under Section 420 IPC.

10. The allegations made herein have to be tested on the anvil of the factual background of the cases relied upon by the learned counsel for the Petitioners. In the FIR as well as in the statements in the charge sheet under the column "brief facts of the case", the investigating agency has referred to three numbers of non-judicial agreements relating to payment of money by the complainant and it is the case of the complainant that they were abused on 15.09.2024 and on intervention of the gentries the accused gave two cheques dated 15.09.2024 which, on production, were dishonoured, leading to the institution of the FIR dated 13.03.2025.

11. This Court perused the statement of the complainant as well as that of the witnesses. Though there is material on record to indicate that the Petitioners had assured to provide house building material and in disregard of such assurance, they failed

to deliver such materials and the two cheques given by them on 15.09.2024 were dishonoured.

12. It is on record that in respect of the dishonoured cheques, ICC case has already been instituted. At this stage, it is apposite to refer to the provisions of Section 318(4) BNS which corresponds to Section 420 of IPC which reads thus:

"318.Cheating.:-

(1) to (3). xxx xxx xxx (4) Whoever cheats and thereby dishonestly induces the person deceived to deliver any property to any person, or to make, alter or destroy the whole or any part of a valuable security, or anything which is signed or sealed, and which is capable of being converted into a valuable security, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine."

13. The background in which the Petitioners took the amount but failed to discharge their obligation, this Court is of the considered view that ipso facto the offence under Section 318(4) of BNS is not attracted, since there is nothing on record to indicate that from the very inception the Petitioners intended not to honour their commitment. Hence, in the given facts of the present case, keeping in view the law laid down by

the Apex Court in the case of State of Haryana and Others vrs. Ch. Bhajan Lal and Others, 1992 Supp.(1) SCC 335, this Court is of the considered view that directing the Petitioners to go through the rigors of trial for commission of offence under Section 318(4) of BNS would be an abuse of process of law.

So far as the offences under Sections 296/115(2)/74/351(2)/3(5) of BNS are concerned, this Court does not find any irregularity or illegality in the impugned order of taking cognizance for the said offences. Hence, the Criminal Revision is disposed of directing quashing cognizance in respect of offence under Section 318(4) of BNS, but the order of cognizance in respect of the Petitioners is not interfered with relating to alleged commission of offences under Sections 296/115(2)/74/351(2)/3(5) of BNS.

Accordingly, the Criminal Revision is allowed to the extend as indicated above.

14. It is needless to mention here that it shall be open for the Petitioners to raise all grounds available to them in law at the time of framing of charge in respect of the offences relating to which the order of cognizance has not been interfered with.

15. In the event such an application is filed, the same shall be considered on its own merit without being influenced by this order which relates to an order of cognizance.

It is further clarified that the observations made herein are only for the purpose of the case at hand and shall not in any way affect the adjudication in ICC case No.122 of 2024 pending on the file of learned S.D.J.M, Berhampur at the instance of Opposite Party No.2 under Section 138 of NI Act.

(V. NARASINGH) Judge

Orissa High Court, Cuttack, Dated the 20th April, 2026/Santoshi

Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack