The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK CRLMC No.421 of 2025 Rashmi Ranjan Swain ..... Benudhar Sahoo -versus- ..... Petitioner Represented By Adv. - Kali Prasad Mohanty Opposite Party Represented By Adv. – M/s Kartik Chandra Tripathy, Rajesh Kumar Mahapatra, P.R.Mishra
Legal Reasoning
CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR MOHAPATRA Order No.
Decision
ORDER 24.06.2025 04. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual /Physical Mode). 2. Heard the learned counsel for the Petitioner as well as the learned for the Opposite Party-Informant. Perused the CRLMC application as well as the documents annexed thereto. 3. By filing the present application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the Petitioner has assailed the legality and validity of order dated 20.08.2024 passed by the learned J.M.F.C., Pipili in 1.C.C. No.85 of 2016. He has also prayed for a direction to the court in seisin over the matter to summon the Branch Manager, UCO Bank to produce the record relating to the Current Account and the Cheque in question. Page 1 of 5. 4. Along with the aforesaid application, the Petitioner has also filed an interlocutory application bearing I.A. No.932 of 2025 with a prayer to quash/recall the N.B.W. dated 06.03.2025 issued against the present Petitioner in 1.C.C. No.85 of 2016. 5. Learned counsel for the Petitioner, at the outset, contended that during trial the Petitioner filed an application before the trial court under Annexure-1 with a prayer for a direction to the Branch Manager, UCO Bank, Nimapara Branch to produce the C.C. account and the cheque and to adduce evidence. The complaint case which was filed by the Complainant was for commission of offence under Section 138 of N.I. Act. In such view of the matter, learned counsel for the Petitioner contended that examination of the Branch Manager as well as the account details and the cheque are very much material for a just adjudication of the dispute pending before the trial court. As such, learned counsel for the Petitioner argued that the order dated 20.08.2024 rejecting the Petitioner’s application under Annexure-1 is highly illegal and that the same will not stand scrutiny of law. Accordingly, it was prayed that the order dated 20.08.2024 be quashed and necessary consequential direction be issued to the trial court to ensure that the Branch Manager of the concerned Bank is summoned for his examination in the trial court. 6. Learned counsel for the Opposite Party-Informant, on the other hand, objected to the prayer made by the Petitioner in his application. He further submitted that the trial court has not Page 2 of 5. rejected the application as alleged by the counsel for the Petitioner. Further, referring to the order dated 20.08.2024, learned counsel for the Opposite Party-Informant contended that although the complaint case is of the year 2016, however, the evidence on behalf of the accused has not commenced. Accordingly, the trial court rejected the application of the Petitioner on the ground that the same is pre-mature. Thus, it was argued that the impugned order dated 20.08.2024 does not call for any interference by this Court at this stage. He also alleged that due to the non-cooperation of the Petitioner, the trial has been unnecessary prolonged. On such ground, learned counsel for the Opposite Party-Informant submitted that the application filed by the Petitioner being devoid of merit is liable to be dismissed at the threshold. 7. Having heard the learned counsels appearing for the respective parties and on a careful analysis of the background facts as well as the legal position, this Court, on a careful analysis of the impugned rejection order dated 20.08.2024, is of the considered view that the trial court has not committed any illegality in rejecting the application of the Petitioner on the ground that the same was pre-mature. Accordingly, this Court holds that the prayer made in the present application is unsustainable in law. 8. However, while disposing of the present application, liberty is given to the Petitioner to move an application at the appropriate time which would be considered by the trial court Page 3 of 5. strictly in accordance with law and the established procedure. 9. So far the I.A. No.932 of 2025 is concerned, it is observed that an N.B.W. has been issued against the Petitioner vide order dated 06.03.2025. 10. Learned counsel for the Petitioner submitted that on 06.03.2025, an application was moved on behalf of the counsel for the Petitioner seeking adjournment on the ground of illness of the Petitioner, however, the court in seisin over the matter without considering the facts stated in such application rejected the prayer for adjournment mechanically and immediately issued N.B.W. against the present Petitioner. 11. Without going into the merits of the assertions made by the learned counsel for the Petitioner and without commenting on the order dated 06.03.2025 passed by the trial court, this Court in the larger interest of justice and to provide another opportunity to the Petitioner to participate in the trial, deems it proper to quash the order issuing N.B.W. dated 06.03.2025. Accordingly, the same is hereby quashed subject to the Petitioner depositing a cost of Rs.1,000/- (Rupees one thousand) with the Advocates’ Welfare Fund of Local Bar Association. The Petitioner is further directed to cooperate with the trial court and to appear before the trial court on each and every date fixed unless his personal appearance is dispensed with by the trial court. Violation of such conditions shall be dealt with appropriately as per law. 12. Further, keeping in view the fact that the complaint case is Page 4 of 5. of the year 2016, the trial court is requested to make every endeavour to conclude the trial as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of four months from the date of communication of a certified copy of this order. The parties are directed to cooperate for an early conclusion of the trial by appearing before the trial court on each and every date fixed and without seeking any unnecessary adjournment. 13. With the aforesaid observation and direction, the CRLMC stands disposed of. Debasis ( Aditya Kumar Mohapatra) Judge Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: DEBASIS AECH Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT Date: 25-Jun-2025 14:23:35 Page 5 of 5.