[Cites 0, Cited by 0]
Orissa High Court
Choudhry Baldev Prasad vs State Of Odisha & Anr. .... Opposite ... on 20 April, 2026
Author: Sanjeeb K Panigrahi
Bench: Sanjeeb K Panigrahi
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
CRLMC No.1197 of 2026
Choudhry Baldev Prasad
Nanda & Anr. .... Petitioner(s)
Mr. Gopal Prasad Jena, Adv.
-versus-
State of Odisha & Anr. .... Opposite Party(s)
Mr. Tej Kumar, ASC
CORAM:
HON'BLE DR.JUSTICE SANJEEB K PANIGRAHI
ORDER
Order No.
20.04.2026
1. This matter is taken up through hybrid arrangement.
2. By filing the present CRLMC, the Petitioners have prayed
for quashing the order of taking cognizance dated 02.04.2025
and 12.05.2025 passed by the learned J.M.F.C.-IV,
Bhubaneswar. The Petitioners have also prayed for quashing
the charge sheet so also the F.I.R. filed by Opposite Party
No.2.
3. Heard.
4. Learned counsel for the Petitioners submits that
Designation: Senior Stenographer
On 03.01.2025 at around 9:00 A.M., while he was taking his
Reason: Authentication
Location: HIGH COURT OF
ORISSA, CUTTACK
Date: 22-Apr-2026 17:28:32
car out of the gate of his residence, accused Sandeep Panda
intentionally and falsely alleged that the vehicle of the
Petitioner had hit his leg. On this pretext, the said Sandeep
Panda left his scooter and suddenly assaulted the Petitioner
in a violent manner, causing grievous injuries to him.
Consequently, the Petitioner had to be immediately shifted
for medical treatment.
5. Learned counsel for the Petitioners further submits that
during the course of the incident, the mother of the accused,
namely Mamata Panda, also came out of her residence and
actively assisted Sandeep Panda in the assault. The entire
incident has been captured in the CCTV footage installed at
the spot, which clearly establishes the sequence of events
and the role of the accused persons.
6. Learned counsel for the Petitioners further contends that
on receiving information, the police reached the spot and
apprehended Sandeep Panda, who was taken into custody.
His bail application was initially rejected by the learned
Additional Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge (Vigilance),
Bhubaneswar on 15.01.2025, taking into consideration the
grievous injuries sustained by the petitioner, particularly on
the head and face. However, subsequently, the accused was
granted bail by this Court in BLAPL No.722 of 2025.
Similarly, co-accused Mamata Panda was granted
anticipatory bail by this Court in ABLAPL No.3450 of 2025
on 02.05.2025.
7. Learned counsel for the Petitioners further contends that
the accused Sandeep Panda was arrested from the spot on
the date of occurrence itself, i.e., 03.01.2025. However, an
FIR was subsequently lodged on the same day by his sister-
in-law, Maheswata Patjoshi, against the present Petitioners,
after the arrest of the accused, clearly indicating an
afterthought and a counterblast to the lawful action taken by
the police.
8. Further, the medical examination of Sandeep Panda
conducted on 03.01.2025 prior to his remand to judicial
custody clearly records that there were no external injuries
on his person. This fact completely demolishes the
allegations made in the subsequently lodged FIR.
9. Learned counsel for the Petitioners further contends that
surprisingly, a subsequent medical certificate dated
31.03.2025 has been brought into existence alleging
abrasions on the body of Sandeep Panda purportedly on the
date of occurrence, i.e., 03.01.2025. Such a delayed and
contradictory medical document is inherently unreliable,
fabricated and has evidently been created only for the
purpose of strengthening a false case.
10. Moreover, another medical report dated 26.01.2025 from
Capital Hospital indicates abrasions on the body of Sandeep
Panda, which is in direct contradiction to the initial medical
report dated 03.01.2025. These inconsistencies clearly
establish manipulation and fabrication of medical evidence
at a later stage.
11. In contrast, the medical examination report of the
Petitioner conducted on 03.01.2025 unequivocally
establishes that the Petitioner sustained grievous injuries in
the incident. This further corroborates the Petitioner's case
that he was the victim of the assault and not the aggressor.
12. It is further submitted that there was absolutely no cause
or provocation on the part of the Petitioner to assault the
accused. On the contrary, it was the accused who initiated
the attack, which is clearly supported by the CCTV footage.
The allegations made in the FIR regarding assault by the
petitioner, use of abusive language by his wife, and
existence of prior enmity are wholly false, baseless and
concocted.
13. The FIR in question has been lodged with mala fide
intention, solely to harass the Petitioner and to create a false
defence in response to the lawful arrest of the accused. The
same is nothing but an abuse of the process of law and is
liable to be quashed.
14. Learned counsel for the State opposed the submissions
advanced by the learned counsel for the Petitioners.
15. Considering the submissions made on behalf of the
learned counsel for the respective parties and on perusal of
the available materials on record, this Court is not
persuaded by the arguments advanced by the learned
counsel for the Petitioners to scuttle/terminate the trial at
this stage without a thorough examination of the matter.
16. It is well settled that appreciation of evidence falls within
the exclusive domain of the trial court. This Court, in
exercise of its inherent jurisdiction under Section 528 of
BNSS, cannot undertake such an exercise or prematurely
terminate the trial process. The inherent powers under
Section 528 of BNSS are to be exercised sparingly, with
circumspection and only in cases where it is manifest that
there exists a legal bar to the institution or continuation of
the proceedings, or where the allegations do not disclose
any offence.
17. In the present case, this Court does not find sufficient
ground to quash the criminal proceeding at this stage.
However, it is observed that if the Petitioners file an
application for discharge before the learned trial Court at
the appropriate stage, the same shall be considered in
accordance with law. The learned trial Court shall also take
into consideration the apparent contradictions between the
medical reports dated 03.01.2025 and 26.01.2025, both issued
by the same doctor.
18. This CRLMC is, accordingly, disposed of.
19. Pending application (s), if any, shall stand disposed of.
(Dr. Sanjeeb K Panigrahi)
Judge
Sipun
