Braja Bhai @ Brajaraj Das vs State Of Odisha .... Opposite Party(S)
2026 Latest Caselaw 2190 Ori

Orissa High Court

Braja Bhai @ Brajaraj Das vs State Of Odisha .... Opposite Party(S) on 10 March, 2026

Author: Sanjeeb K Panigrahi

Bench: Sanjeeb K Panigrahi

                                              IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

                                                            CRLMC No.529 of 2026

                                           Braja Bhai @ Brajaraj Das            ....            Petitioner(s)

                                                                              Ms. Anitarani Panda, Adv.
                                                                         -versus-
                                           State of Odisha                   ....     Opposite Party(s)

                                                                                     Mr. Sonak Mishra, ASC

                                                  CORAM:
                                                  HON'BLE DR.JUSTICE SANJEEB K PANIGRAHI

                                                                       ORDER

Order No. 10.03.2026

1. This matter is taken up through hybrid arrangement.

2. Heard.

3. By filing the present CRLMC, the Petitioner has prayed

for quashing the entire criminal proceedings initiated

against him vide G.R. Case No.1427 of 2006 arising out of

Designation: Senior Stenographer

Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK

of learned J.M.F.C. (II), Cuttack. Date: 10-Mar-2026 17:19:28

4. Learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that the matter

has been pending for nearly twenty years and therefore,

deserves to the quashed. She further submits that the case

has not yet effectively commenced with regard to

examination of witnesses, as summons have been issued as

many as twenty seven witnesses and none of them has

appeared before the learned trial Court so far. She further

submits that in the meantime, the Petitioner has attained

the age of sixty five years and become immobile due to

various physical ailments. Hence, she contends that the

continuation of the criminal proceedings is creating

unnecessary harassment and mental agony to the present

Petition.

5. Be that as it may, the grounds advanced by the learned

counsel for the Petitioner cannot be accepted for quashing

the entire criminal proceedings. However, considering the

prolonged pendency of the matter, this Court is of the view

that the learned J.M.F.C. (II), Cuttack shall make every

endeavour to conclude the proceedings at the earliest,

preferably, within a period of six months from the date of

receipt of the copy of this order.

6. With these observations and directions, the CRLMC

stands dismissed.

7. A free copy of this order be communicated to the learned

trial Court for information.

(Dr. Sanjeeb K Panigrahi) Judge

Sipun