[Cites 7, Cited by 0]
Orissa High Court
Jawahar Lal Nayak vs State Of Odisha .... Opposite Party(S) on 13 March, 2026
Author: Sanjeeb K Panigrahi
Bench: Sanjeeb K Panigrahi
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
CRLMC No.504 of 2026
Jawahar Lal Nayak .... Petitioner(s)
Mr. Rajendra Kumar Sahu, Adv.
-versus-
State of Odisha .... Opposite Party(s)
Mr. Debasish Nayak, AGA
CORAM:
HON'BLE DR.JUSTICE SANJEEB K PANIGRAHI
ORDER
Order No. 13.03.2026
1. This matter is taken up through hybrid arrangement.
2. By filing the present CRLMC, the Petitioner has prayed
for quashing the entire criminal proceedings initiated
against him in connection with C.T. Case No.68 of 2023
corresponding to C.T. Case No.4525 of 2021 arising out of
EOW P.S. Case No.10 of 2021, pending adjudication before
the learned Presiding Officer, O.P.I.D. Court, Cuttack.
3. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner and learned
Designation: Senior Stenographer
counsel for the State.
ORISSA, CUTTACK
Date: 13-Mar-2026 17:38:59
4. Learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that the
Petitioner has been arrayed as an accused in connection
with allegations relating to the issuance of alleged fake
work orders in the name of Odisha Tourism Development
Corporation Ltd. (OTDC), despite there being no prima
facie material to show his involvement in any act of forgery,
impersonation or cheating.
5. Learned counsel for the Petitioner further contends that
the gravamen of allegations in the F.I.R. and investigation is
against accused Chandan Akash Mohanty and Swami
Bijaynandaji Maharaj @ Bijaynanda Choudhury, who
allegedly forged OTDC work orders, impersonated
officials, created fake seals and letterheads and induced the
victim contractor to part with large sums of money.
6. Learned counsel for the Petitioner further contends that
the Petitioner is not named as a principal accused in the
F.I.R. and no allegation of forging, preparing, using or
possessing any forged document has been attributed to him
at any stage of investigation. During the course of
investigation, the Petitioner has been implicated only on the
allegation that he introduced the victim contractor to the
other accused persons, being socially acquainted with them
and allegedly act as a mediator. There is no allegation that
the Petitioner had any authority, control or role in issuance
of work orders or handling of OTDC documents.
7. Learned counsel for the Petitioner further contends that
the essential ingredients of offences under Sections
467/468/471/472/474/475 of the I.P.C., namely, creation,
possession or use of forged valuable security or documents,
are conspicuously absent insofar as the Petitioner is
concerned, even if the entire prosecution case is accepted on
its face value.
8. Learned counsel for the Petitioner further contends that
the Petitioner is a private individual and a retired school
teacher, having no connection whatsoever with the
functioning, administration or engineering wing of Odisha
Tourism Development Corporation Ltd., and he held no
position or authority enabling him to issue, influence or
facilitate issuance of any work order.
9. Learned counsel for the Petitioner further contends that
because criminal law does not recognize vicarious liability
in such circumstances and the Petitioner cannot be
prosecuted merely because he is acquainted with or related
to either the victim or the co-accused, in the absence of
specific acts constituting the alleged offences.
10. Learned counsel for the Petitioner further contends that
the allegations against the Petitioner are omnibus,
inferential and derivative in nature and do not disclose any
direct act on his part satisfying the ingredients of the
offences alleged, thereby rendering continuation of the
proceedings against him wholly unjustified.
11. Per contra, learned counsel for the State submits that the
Petitioner had taken the victim contractor to one Baba and
had a specific role in the alleged conspiracy. He further
contends that the truth will emerge only after conclusion of
the trial. Accordingly, he prays for dismissal of this
CRLMC.
12. Considering the submissions made on behalf of both
the 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 Petitioner to
scuttle/terminate the trial at this stage without a thorough
examination of the matter. It is well settled that the
appreciation of evidence is a function of the trial court. This
Court in exercise of power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. cannot
assume such jurisdiction and put an end to the process of
trial provided under the law. The power under Section 482
of the Cr.P.C. at the pre-trial stage should not be used in a
routine manner, but it has to be used sparingly only in such
appropriate cases, where it manifestly appears that there is
a legal bar against the institution or continuation of the
criminal proceedings. This Court, in the present context,
declines to quash the entire above noted criminal
proceeding initiated against the Petitioner. However, this
Court is of the view that if the Petitioner approaches the
learned trial Court by filing a discharge petition at the
appropriate stage, the same shall be considered in
accordance with law.
13. This CRLMC is, accordingly, disposed of.
14. Pending application (s), if any, shall stand disposed of.
(Dr. Sanjeeb K Panigrahi)
Judge
Sipun
