Rakesh Kumar vs State Of Odisha on 10 March, 2026

              IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
                          CRLMP No. 260 of 2026

1.Rakesh Kumar
2.Sumanta Kumar Behera                  .....                           Petitioners
                                                   Ms. Sonia Mathur, Sr. Advocate
                                        along with Mr. Subham Satpathy, Advocate
                                      -versus-
1.State of Odisha
2.The Deputy Commissioner of
Police, Cuttack
3.The Investigating Officer-cum-the
Officer-in-charge of CDA
4. Smt. Subhranshu Bala Parhi           .....                    Opposite Parties
5. Prasanna Kumar Parhi                                           Mr. S. K. Rout,
                                                     Additional Standing Counsel

            CORAM:
                  HON'BLE MISS JUSTICE SAVITRI RATHO
                                ORDER

10.03.2026 Order No. (Through hybrid Mode)

02.

CRLMP No. 260 of 2026 & I.A. No. 55 of 2026

1. This CRLMP has been filed praying for quashing of the FIR No. 40 dated 23.03.2025 registered at CDA Phase-II, Police Station, Cuttack UPD under Sections 318(4), 61(2)(B), 324(4), 316(2), 3(5) of the BNS, 2023 against the petitioners.

2. Appearance memo of Ms. Mathur, learned Senior Advocate has been filed today in Court.

3. The complainant has interalia alleged in her complaint that an amount of Rs 2,95,000/- was initially deposited in the year 2022

with the Company for purchase of two elevators. For the elevator to be installed in her residence, she had paid an advance of Rs. 1,50,000/- out of Rs 15,00,000/-, but there was delay in installation for which she could not move to her residence. After installation, the elevator malfunctioned frequently. It is alleged that defective elevator had been deliberately provided. Only temporary repairs were carried out and permanent repairs were not done deliberately within the twelve month free service period. In spite of assurance by the accused persons, the defects were not rectified for which the complainant, her family members and employees have suffered. The second elevator was never supplied.

4. Ms. Mathur learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners were / are salaried employees of Schindler Company (in short "the Company") Petitioner No. 1 was serving as Assistant General Manager - Field Operations, functioning as Branch Manager, but has now left the Company. Petitioner No. 2 currently serves as the Senior Customer Engineer (Existing Installation) with the Company. Pursuant to a sales agreement which is at Annexure 2 Series and in spite of delay in payment, the elevator had been installed by the Company in the building of the customer- complainant and the Company had provided free service for a period of twelve months after installation. No AMC was opted for by the complainant thereafter even though she was informed by e-mail on 11.12.20224 and given the AMC quotation. But the Company has responded to the complaints and tried to rectify the defects. A representation has been submitted to the I.O on 21.01.2026 to examine, if any, cognizable offence is made out (Annexure-7 series).

5. She submits that even accepting all the allegations in the FIR

to be true, no offence whatsoever is made out against the petitioners, who are salaried employees of the Company which had installed the elevator. A consumer complaint No. 66 of 2025 has also been filed by the complainant before the Hon'ble District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Orissa two days after lodging of the FIR, complaining of defects in the elevator and service and praying for payment of compensation of Rs. 47 lakhs. She has also submitted that allegation under Section 316(2) and 318(4) of the BNS cannot co-exist. She also drew my attention to the Arbitration Clause in the Sales Agreement. She relies on the decisions of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Haryana and Ors. vs. Bhajan Lal and Ors. : AIR 1992 SC 604, Arshad Nayez Khan vs. State of Jharkhand and Anr.,: 2025 INSC 1151 and Delhi Race Club (1940) Ltd. and Ors. vs. State of U.P. and Anr.: 2024 SCC OnLine SC 2248.

6. Ms. Mathur, learned counsel submits that during pendency of investigation the Sub-Inspector of Police of CDA phase-II Police Station, has been calling up the company for rectification of defects in the escalator and for personal appearance of the Manager in the Police Station and this is averred in the CRLMP and the I.A. The petitioners are therefore apprehensive that they may be arrested and pressurized by the Police, if they do not appear in the Police Station as directed.

7. From a reading of the written complaint, it appears that case for deficiency of service may be made out which will be decided by the Consumer Commission, if the dispute between the complainant and the Company is otherwise not sorted out.

8. In order to give a chance to Mr. S. K. Rout, learned Additional Standing Counsel to obtain instructions, list this matter on 24.03.2026.

9. It is stated in Paragraph-13 of the I.A. No. 55 of 2026, that on 29.01.2026, Regional Counsel for the company received a call from a Sub-Inspector of Police in connection with the case stating that the Manager should personally attend the Police Station, failing which coercive action would be taken in the matter. The said paragraph is extracted below;-

"The most pivotal aspect for filing this interlocutory application is that Shri. Suresh Kumar (Regional Counsel) for the Company received a call from a Sub-Inspector of Police on 29.01.2026, in the late evening from C.D.A. Phase-II Police Station, Cuttack UPD, in connection with FIR No. 40. During the said conversation, the Sub Inspector of Police insisted that the manager involved in the transaction should personally attend the Police Station, failing which further coercive steps would be taken in the matter. However, the Officials of the C.D.A. Phase II Police Station, Cuttack UPD, have failed to consider the facts mentioned in the representation and have failed to take any steps in respect of the same."

10. Ms. Mathur, learned counsel relying on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Niharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of Maharashtra reported in (2020) 10 SCC 180 and A. P. Mahesh Co-operative Urban Bank Shareholders Welfare Association vs. Ramesh Kumar Baug and Ors., reported in (2021) 9

SCC 152 submits that interim protection may be granted to the petitioners.

11. Paragraphs 16 and 20 of the decision in Niharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. (supra) is extracted below;

"16. In a given case, there may be allegations of abuse of process of law by converting a civil dispute into a criminal dispute, only with a view to pressurise the accused. Similarly, in a given case the complaint itself on the face of it can be said to be barred by law. The allegations in the FIR/complaint may not at all disclose the commission of a cognizable offence. In such cases and in exceptional cases with circumspection, the High Court may stay the further investigation. However, at the same time, there may be genuine complaints/FIRs and the police/investigating agency has a statutory obligation/right/duty to enquire into the cognizable offences. Therefore, a balance has to be struck between the rights of the genuine complainants and the FIRs disclosing commission of a cognizable offence and the statutory obligation/duty of the investigating agency to investigate into the cognizable offences on the one hand and those innocent persons against whom the criminal proceedings are initiated which may be in a given case abuse of process of law and the process. However, if the facts are hazy and the investigation has just begun, the High Court would be circumspect in exercising such powers and the High Court must permit the Investigating agency to proceed further with the investigation in exercise of its statutory duty under the provisions of CrPC. Even in such a

case the High Court has to give/assign brief reasons why at this stage the further investigation is required to be stayed. The High Court must appreciate that speedy investigation is the requirement in the criminal administration of justice.

xxx xxx xxx

20. As already stated, it is the statutory right and even the duty of the police to investigate into the cognizable offence and collect the evidence during the course of Investigation. There may be requirement of a custodial investigation for which the accused is required to be in police custody (popularly known as remand). Therefore, passing such type of blanket interim orders without assigning reasons, of not to arrest and/or "no coercive steps" would hamper the Investigation and may affect the statutory right/duty of the police to investigate the cognizable offence conferred under the provisions of CrPC."

12. In view of the nature of allegation in the case and the insistence of the police for the petitioners to appear in the Police Station, I am satisfied that this is a fit case, where petitioners are entitled to interim protection. It is therefore directed that no coercive action shall be taken against the petitioners, nor do they have to appear in the Police Station, during pendency of this CRLMP.

Signed by: SUBHALAXMI PRIYADARSHANI Judge SAHOO Subhalaxmi Reason: Authentication Location: Orissa High Court Cuttack, Orissa Date: 12-Mar-2026 19:32:07