M Raj Kumar vs State Of Odisha .... Opposite Party(S)
2026 Latest Caselaw 2442 Ori

Citation : 2026 Latest Caselaw 2442 Ori
Judgement Date : 16 March, 2026

[Cites 6, Cited by 0]

Orissa High Court

M Raj Kumar vs State Of Odisha .... Opposite Party(S) on 16 March, 2026

Author: Sanjeeb K Panigrahi

Bench: Sanjeeb K Panigrahi

                                            IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

                                                          CRLMC No.600 of 2026

                                          M Raj Kumar                   ....              Petitioner(s)
                                                                       Mr. Soubhagya Kumar Dash, Adv.

                                                                       -versus-
                                          State of Odisha                ....            Opposite Party(s)
                                                                                  Miss Gayatri Patra, ASC

                                                 CORAM:
                                                 HON'BLE DR.JUSTICE SANJEEB K PANIGRAHI

                                  Order                                 ORDER
                                  No.                                  16.03.2026

02. 1. This matter is taken up through hybrid arrangement.

2. In filing this CRLMC, the Petitioner against whom the

allegation of misappropriation of public money is made

while serving as the Sub-Post Master at Hospital

Road(Pkd.), Sub Post Office under Paralakhemundi H.O,

has prayed for quashing the impugned order dated

20.01.2026 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate-

cum-Asst. A.S.J, Parlakhemundi in G.R. Case No.587/2018

corresponding to Paralakhemundi P.S. Case No.261/2018.

Apart from the above, the Petitioner has also sought for a

direction from this Court to the learned Court in seisin

over the matter for issuing necessary documents

mentioned in the petition under Section 91 of the Cr.P.C

Signed by: AYASKANTA JENA which is rejected vide impugned order dated 20.01.2026, in Designation: Personal Assistant Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa Date: 17-Mar-2026 17:05:15 his favour.

3. Heard.

4. Challenging the impugned order dated 20.01.2026

passed in the above noted G.R. Case, learned counsel for

the Petitioner submits that despite the best efforts of the

Petitioner the documents sought for through the petition

under Section 91 of the Cr.P.C. at his instance have not yet

been issued. He further contends that the Petitioner has

been falsely implicated in this case. He, in the process,

relying on the provision under Section 207 of the Cr.P.C

submits that the documents may be supplied in favour of

the Petitioner. He also contends that the Petitioner needs

the above noted documents in order to prove his

innocence. He, accordingly, prays for allowing the prayer

made in this CRLMC. The provision under Section 207 of

the Cr.P.C. is extracted hereinbelow:-

"207. Supply to the accused of copy of the police report and other documents- In any case where the proceeding has been instituted on a police report, the Magistrate shall without delay furnish to the accused, free of cost, a copy of each of the following:-

(i) the police report;

(ii) the first information recorded under section 154;

(iii) the statements recorded under sub-section (3) of section 161 of all persons whom the prosecution proposes to examine as its witnesses, excluding

Designation: Personal Assistant such exclusion has been made by the police officer

Location: High Court of Orissa Date: 17-Mar-2026 17:05:15 under sub-section (6) of section 173;

(iv) the confessions and statements, if any, recorded under section 164;

(v) any other document or relevant extract thereof forwarded to the Magistrate with the police report under sub-section (5) of section 173:

Provided that the Magistrate may, after perusing any such part of a statement as is referred to in clause (iii) and considering the reasons given by the police officer for the request, direct that a copy of that part of the statement or of such portion thereof as the Magistrate thinks proper, shall be furnished to the accused:

Provided further that if the Magistrate is satisfied that any document referred to in clause (v) is voluminous, he shall, instead of furnishing the accused with a copy thereof, direct that he will only be allowed to inspect it either personally or through pleader in Court."

5. In his opposition, learned counsel for the State submits

that despite supplying of necessary documents in favour

of the Petitioner, the Petitioner is unable to establish a case

in his favour. He, accordingly, prays for dismissal of this

CRLMC.

6. Considering the submissions made on behalf of both the

parties and without going into the merits of the case, this

Court directs the Petitioner to file a fresh application for

issuance of necessary documents mentioned in the petition

under Section 91 of the Cr.P.C rejected vide impugned

order dated 20.01.2026 which shall be considered and

Designation: Personal Assistant disposed of as per law and the said documents shall be