Tarjan Kumar Patra vs State Of Odisha & Anr. .... Opposite ...
2026 Latest Caselaw 2626 Ori

Orissa High Court

Tarjan Kumar Patra vs State Of Odisha & Anr. .... Opposite ... on 19 March, 2026

Author: Sanjeeb K Panigrahi

Bench: Sanjeeb K Panigrahi

                                        IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

                                                     CRLMC No.829 of 2026

                                     Tarjan Kumar Patra               ....           Petitioner(s)

                                                                   Mr. Suryakanta Dwibedi, Adv.

                                                                  -versus-
                                     State of Odisha & Anr.           ....     Opposite Party(s)

                                                                      Mr. Raj Bhusan Dash, ASC

                                            CORAM:
                                            HON'BLE DR.JUSTICE SANJEEB K PANIGRAHI

                                                                 ORDER

Order No. 19.03.2026

1. This matter is taken up through hybrid arrangement.

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

for quashing the order dated 15.04.2025 passed by the

learned J.M.F.C. (R), Rourkela in connection with G.R. Case

No.252 of 2025 corresponding to Bandamunda P.S. Case

No.30 of 2025, whereby the learned trial Court took

cognizance of the offences punishable under Sections

115(2)/126(2)/109/3(5) of the BNS.

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: SIPUN BEHERA Apart from the above, the Petitioner has also prayed for Designation: Senior Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK Date: 19-Mar-2026 16:38:46 quashing the entire criminal proceedings initiated against

him in connection with S.T. Case No.27/18 of 2026 (arising

out of the G.R. Case No.252 of 2025), pending before the

learned 2nd Addl. Sessions Judge, Rourkela.

3. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner and learned

counsel for the State.

4. Learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that the

allegations against the Petitioner are wholly false and

fabricated and that the Petitioner is in no way involved in

the alleged commission of the offences. It is further

contended that, upon a bare perusal of the F.I.R. and the

materials collected and placed on record, there is absolutely

no material to constitute a prima facie case against the

Petitioner in any manner whatsoever.

5. Learned counsel for the Petitioner further submits that

the Petitioner has not been named in the F.I.R. The only

allegation against him is that he pushed the injured person,

whereas the specific allegation of assault has been

attributed to one Suraj Yadav. Considering the nature of

injury and the alleged weapon of offence, i.e., an iron

bangle, the offence under Section 109 of the BNS, 2023 is not

made out. Moreover, the said co-accused, Suraj Yadav, also

sustained five injuries on his person, and the prosecution is

duty-bound to explain the injuries caused to the accused.

6. Learned counsel further contends that the prosecution

has failed to produce any material indicating that the

Petitioner, along with the other accused persons, had any

intention to cause death of the injured. A perusal of the

injury report reveals that the injuries are simple in nature,

and in the totality of the facts and circumstances, it is

evident that the intention to commit murder is wholly

absent.

7. Learned counsel for the Petitioner further contends that

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.

8. Per contra, 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.

9. Learned counsel further submits that the veracity of the

allegations and the question of false implication are all

matters to be adjudicated upon recording of evidence

during course of trial. According to him, premature

interference would stifle a legitimate prosecution. He prays

for dismissal of the present CRLMC.

10. 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.

11. 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.

12. 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.

13. In the present case, this Court does not find any patent

illegality, jurisdictional error, or legal embargo warranting

interference.