[Cites 1, Cited by 0]
Orissa High Court
Sushil Kumar Sahoo @ vs State Of Odisha .... Opposite Party(S) on 25 March, 2026
Author: Sanjeeb K Panigrahi
Bench: Sanjeeb K Panigrahi
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
CRLMC No.888 of 2026
Sushil Kumar Sahoo @
Ganesh & Ors. .... Petitioner(s)
Mr. Pronoy Mohanty, S.N. Dash, S.K. Sahu,
K.T. Mudali, P. Pani, Adv.
-versus-
State of Odisha .... Opposite Party(s)
Ms. Gayatri Patra, ASC
CORAM:
HON'BLE DR.JUSTICE SANJEEB K PANIGRAHI
ORDER
Order No. 25.03.2026
1. This matter is taken up through hybrid arrangement.
2. By filing the present CRLMC, the Petitioners have prayed
for quashing the entire criminal proceedings initiated
against them vide Nandankanan P.S. Case No.222 of 2025
vide Annexure-1 and the charge sheet vide C.S. No.309 of
2025 under Annexure-2.
3. Heard learned counsel for the respective parties.
4. Learned counsel for the Petitioners submits that the F.I.R.
has been lodged on the basis of a wholly false and
concocted story fabricated by the police officials. It is
contended that Petitioner No.1 is a businessman having his
own godown at Kalyanpur Mouza, and the other
Petitioners are staff and labourers working therein.
5. Learned counsel further contends that, as per the F.I.R.,
the police officials allegedly conducted a raid at the
godown of Petitioner No.1 at about 1:15 A.M. on 14.06.2025.
However, it is submitted that the CCTV footage reveals that
the police officials had already arrived at the spot at 11:09
P.M. on 13.06.2025 and left the premises at about 11:37 P.M.
on the same night after allegedly arresting the Petitioners,
thereby contradicting the version recorded in the F.I.R.
6. Learned counsel for the Petitioners further contends that
serious allegations have been levelled against the police
officials, including their involvement in vigilance cases and
a tainted service record with repeated accusations of
bribery, criminal intimidation, etc. It is argued that such
circumstances give rise to a reasonable apprehension that
the investigation has been conducted in an unfair and
biased manner. On this ground, it is urged that the F.I.R.
and the charge-sheet (Annexures-1 & 2) are liable to be
quashed.
7. . Learned counsel for the Petitioners further submits that
even upon a bare perusal of the F.I.R. and the charge-sheet,
and assuming the allegations therein to be true in their
entirety, no cognizable offence is made out against the
present Petitioners.
8. Learned counsel for the Petitioners further contends that
from the bare perusal of the F.I.E. and the charge sheet,
even if it is taken at face value, the same does not constitute
any cognizable offence against the present Petitioners.
9. Learned counsel for the Petitioners further contends that
the present proceedings have been initiated with malicious
and vexatious intent, allegedly due to personal grudge
against the Petitioners. It is argued that continuation of
such proceedings would amount to an abuse of the process
of Court and result in undue harassment to the Petitioners.
Accordingly, a prayer is made for quashing of the
impugned proceedings in exercise of inherent jurisdiction.
10. 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 Petitioners. 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.
11. 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. She prays
for dismissal of the present CRLMC.
12. 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 them is
essentially a matter to be adjudicated upon appreciation of
evidence during trial.
13. 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.
14. The power under Section 528 of B.N.S.C.
(corresponding to 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.
15. In the present case, this Court is not inclined to quash
the entire criminal proceeding initiated against the
Petitioners. However, it is observed that if the Petitioners
approach the learned trial Court by filing an appropriate
application for discharge at the relevant stage, the same
shall be considered in accordance with law. In the event of
any delay in filing such application, the trial Court shall
also consider the same in accordance with law.
16. This CRLMC is, accordingly, disposed of.
17. Pending application (s), if any, shall stand disposed of.
18. Issue urgent certified copy of this order as per Rules.
(Dr. Sanjeeb K Panigrahi)
Judge
Sipun
