[Cites 1, Cited by 0]
Orissa High Court
Dr. Simanchalla Ranjit vs State Of Odisha & Ors. .... Opposite ... on 9 March, 2026
Author: Sanjeeb K Panigrahi
Bench: Sanjeeb K Panigrahi
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
CRLMC No.458 of 2026
Dr. Simanchalla Ranjit .... Petitioner(s)
Mr. Gajendranath Rout, Adv.
-versus-
State of Odisha & Ors. .... Opposite Party(s)
Smt. Sarita Moharana, ASC
Name of the Advocate
for O.P. No.3 not given
CORAM:
HON'BLE DR.JUSTICE SANJEEB K PANIGRAHI
Order ORDER
No. 09.03.2026
02. 1. This matter is taken up through hybrid arrangement.
2. In filing this CRLMC, the Petitioner against whom the
allegation of theft of the vehicle in question is made, has
prayed for quashing the entire criminal proceeding
initiated against him vide G.R. Case No.2117/2025 arising
out of Bhadrak (R) P.S. Case No.514 of 2025 dated
07.09.2025 pending before the Court of learned S.D.J.M,
Bhadrak.
3. Heard the parties and perused the records.
4. Challenging institution of the above noted criminal
proceeding against the Petitioner, learned counsel for the
Petitioner submits that since the Petitioner is an Advocate,
Designation: Personal Assistant the vehicle in question was provided to him by his client
Location: High Court of Orissa
Date: 10-Mar-2026 17:21:23
for attending a case on his behalf at Calcutta. He further
contends that the Petitioner was not aware of fact that said
vehicle was a stolen vehicle. He further contends that the
Petitioner has been entangled in this case only on
suspicion. According to him, continuation of the
proceeding would amount to an abuse of the process of
Court and result in undue harassment to the Petitioner. On
these premises, he prays that this Court may be pleased to
allow the relief sought in the present CRLMC and quash
the impugned proceeding in the interest of justice.
5. In opposition, learned counsel for the State submits that
pursuant to the registration of the F.I.R., investigation has
been duly conducted and culminated in submission of
charge-sheet against the Petitioner. It is contended that at
this stage, when the investigating agency has found prima
facie materials and placed the same before the learned
Court below, there exists no compelling or exceptional
circumstance warranting exercise of inherent jurisdiction
to quash the proceeding.
6. Learned counsel further submits that the veracity of the
allegations, the defence plea of prior enmity, and the
question of false implication are all matters to be
adjudicated upon recording of evidence during the course
of trial. According to her, premature interference would
stifle a legitimate prosecution. She prays for dismissal of
Designation: Personal Assistant
Reason: Authentication
Location: High Court of Orissa
Date: 10-Mar-2026 17:21:23
the present CRLMC.
7. Having considered the rival submissions advanced on
behalf of the parties and upon perusal of the materials
available on record, this Court finds that the investigation
has culminated in submission of charge-sheet. At this
juncture, the question as to whether the Petitioner has in
fact committed the offences alleged against him is
essentially a matter to be adjudicated upon appreciation of
evidence during trial.
8. It is trite that evaluation of factual controversies,
assessment of credibility of witnesses, and appreciation of
evidence fall squarely within the domain of the trial court.
The inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482
Cr.P.C. is not intended to supplant the statutory procedure
of trial or to conduct a mini-trial at the pre-trial stage.
9. The power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is to be exercised
sparingly, with circumspection, and only in rare cases
where the complaint or charge-sheet on its face discloses
no offence, or where there exists a legal bar to the
institution or continuance of the proceeding, or where
continuation of the prosecution would amount to a
manifest abuse of the process of Court. In the absence of
such exceptional circumstances, judicial restraint must
prevail.
10. In the present case, this Court does not find any patent
Designation: Personal Assistant
Reason: Authentication
Location: High Court of Orissa
Date: 10-Mar-2026 17:21:23
illegality, jurisdictional error, or legal embargo warranting
interference. However, considering the request of learned
counsel for the Petitioner, this Court permits the Petitioner
to file a petition for discharge before the learned Court in
seisin over the matter which shall be considered and
disposed of in accordance with law. Petitioner is also
permitted to raise all the points raised herein before the
learned Court in seisin over the matter at the time of
framing of charges which shall be dealt with as per law.
11. Accordingly, this Court declines to exercise its inherent
jurisdiction to quash the aforesaid criminal proceeding.
12. This CRLMC is, accordingly, dismissed.
(Dr. Sanjeeb K Panigrahi)
Judge
Ayaskanta
Designation: Personal Assistant
Location: High Court of Orissa
Date: 10-Mar-2026 17:21:23
