[Cites 0, Cited by 0]
Orissa High Court
Padmini Meher vs State Of Odisha ....... Opposite ... on 23 February, 2026
Author: Sanjeeb K Panigrahi
Bench: Sanjeeb K Panigrahi
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
CRLMC No. 2031 of 2025
Padmini Meher ........ Petitioner(s)
Mr. Hianshu Sekhar Mishra, Adv.
-Versus-
State of Odisha ....... Opposite Party(s)
Mr. U.R. Jena, AGA
CORAM:
DR. JUSTICE SANJEEB K PANIGRAHI
ORDER
23.02.2026
CRLMC Nos.2031, 2454, 2461, 2462 & 2463 of 2025
Order No.
07.
1. These matters are taken up through hybrid arrangement.
2. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
3. When the matter is taken up, learned counsel appearing for the
State fairly submits that he is presently not in a position to render
effective assistance to this Court on the specific and substantial
question that arises for consideration in the present case, namely,
whether cryptocurrency, in the context of the allegations forming
the subject matter of this proceeding, is to be treated as legal,
illegal, regulated, or otherwise within the prevailing statutory
and regulatory framework in India.
4. This Court notes that the issue is not merely academic but has
significant implications in matters relating to cyber offences,
financial fraud, money laundering, and cross-border transactions.
The evolving nature of digital assets and the absence of a
comprehensive and codified legislative framework specifically
declaring cryptocurrency as either per se legal tender or per se
prohibited instrumentality necessitate a nuanced understanding
of the existing legal position, including the role of regulatory
authorities such as the Reserve Bank of India and other financial
oversight bodies.
5. This Court is of the view that adjudication on this issue has both
legal and technical dimensions, hence, effective adjudication
would require inputs from officers possessing requisite expertise
and practical exposure in the field of cyber investigation and
digital financial transactions.
6. Accordingly, the Superintendent of Police, Balangir, is directed to
appear before this Court in person on 26th February, 2026. The
Nodal Officer of the Cyber Cell, Balangir, or any other
responsible officer who is well conversant with the functioning of
cryptocurrency platforms, blockchain technology, digital wallets,
and the regulatory regime governing virtual digital assets in
India, shall also remain present to assist this Court.
7. The said officers shall be prepared to address the following
issues:
(i) the present legal status of cryptocurrency in India;
(ii) whether any statutory prohibition exists against
possession, trade, or transaction in cryptocurrency;
(iii) the regulatory framework, if any, governing such
transactions; and
(iv) the manner in which alleged offences involving
cryptocurrency are presently investigated and
prosecuted. What is the basis or intelligence inputs on
which the FIR against the present petitioner was lodged
8. Ld. Counsel for the state is directed to communicate this order
forthwith to the concerned authorities to ensure due compliance.
List this matter on 26th February, 2026.The State is directed to
deposit a cost of Rs.25,000/- for taking repeated adjournment. The
said cost shall be deposited with the State Legal Services
Authority by the next date.
9. At this juncture, learned counsel for the State submits that the
State is not inclined to disclose the inputs received before lodging
of the F.I.R. However, State is ready and willing to explain the
inputs on the basis of which the I.O. has lodged the F.I.R. against
the Petitioner by mean of a sealed cover
10.List this matter on 26th February, 2026. Interim order, if any,
passed earlier shall continue till the next date of listing of this
matter.
( Dr. Sanjeeb K Panigrahi)
Judge
Murmu
