The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK CRLMP No.671 of 2023 Saila Sahoo Petitioner Mr. Bipin Kumar Nayak, Adv. …. -versus- State of Odisha and Anr. …. Opposite Party Mr. Chhoudhury Satyajit Mishra, AGA CORAM: DR. JUSTICE S.K. PANIGRAHI
Decision
Order No. 02. ORDER 19.05.2023 1. This matter is taken up through hybrid arrangement. 2. The Petitioner, in this CRLMP, seeks a direction from this Court to the learned J.M.F.C., Nimapara for early disposal of 1.C.C. Case No.4 of 2021. 3. Heard learned counsel for the Parties. 4. It is apparent from the records that the Petitioner is the complainant and the Opposite Party No.2 is the accused in the aforesaid case. The Petitioner is the President of Jaleswar Sanchayasamiti, At- Torihanbandha, District- Puri. The Opposite Party No.2 belongs to the same village. Due to some necessity, the Opposite Party No.2 had approached the self-help group for loan. The Petitioner being the President of the self-help group, intimated the said fact to the other members of the group. Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Designation: Secretary Reason: Authentication Location: CTC, CUTTACK Date: 19-May-2023 19:38:37 Page 1 of 5 After due discussion and consent of the self-help group, she had given a sum of Rs.1,26,000/- to the Opposite Party No.2. The Opposite Party No.2 assured to refund the above said loan amount within a short time. It is also mentioned in the complaint petition that despite several request of the Petitioner and other members of the self- help group, the Opposite Party No.2 issued a cheque bearing No-“506262”" of the State Bank of India, Nimapara Branch amounting of Rs.1,26,000/- on 10.11.2020 to discharge his liabilities in favour of the Petitioner's group. It is further alleged that after receiving the cheque, the Petitioner presented the said cheque before the O.G.B. Rench Khelar Branch on 16.11.2020 for withdrawal of the cheque amount. But the said cheque was returned to the Petitioner being dishonored due to “insufficiency of funds” in the account of the Opposite Party No.2 along with the cheque return memo to the present Petitioner on 22.11.2020. It is further mentioned that after receiving the cheque return memo, the Petitioner sent a demand notice through her advocate by registered post with A.D. But the Opposite Party No.2 though received the said demand notice but did not return the cheque amount within the time. Accordingly, Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Designation: Secretary Reason: Authentication Location: CTC, CUTTACK Date: 19-May-2023 19:38:37 Page 2 of 5 the complaint/Petitioner filed a complaint case before the court below. 5. Learned counsel for the Petitioner submitted that after taking initial statement of the Petitioner, the learned J.M.F.C., Nimapara has taken cognizance of the offence and issued summons to the Opposite Party No.2 for his appearance vide order dated 06.11.2021. On receipt of the summons, the Opposite Party No.2 appeared before the court below through an Advocate and filed a time petition praying for adjournment. The time petition was allowed by the court below vide order dated 07.12.2021. He further submitted that though the Opposite Party No.2 appeared through an Advocate but he should have appeared before the court below personally or filed a petition under Section 205 of the Cr.P.C. But, instead of doing so, the Petitioner is taking time again and again and the court below has allowed the Petitioner to take time without rejecting the same. It was also submitted that when the Advocate for the Petitioner raised oral objection before the court below to the adjournment, the Opposite Party No.2 filed a petition under Section 205 of the Cr.P.C. before the court below on 18.05.2022. The said petition was allowed vide order dated 28.06.2022 with a direction for filling of an undertaking. He further Page 3 of 5 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Designation: Secretary Reason: Authentication Location: CTC, CUTTACK Date: 19-May-2023 19:38:37 submitted that though the court below had directed the Opposite Party No.2 to file an undertaking, but the Opposite Party No.2 with some pleas did not file the undertaking and the case was adjourned. It was also submitted that the poor villagers have constituted a self- help group and collected some money from each member in order to help their families when the monetary problem will arise in their family. The poor members have collected the hard earned money and deposited the same with the Bank. But on the request of the Opposite Party No.2 who is a co-villager, they had given their hard earned money through the present Petitioner. But, with some pleas the Opposite Party No.2 did not refund the same. Since the Petitioner is the President of the group, other members of the group are demanding their money and forcing her to collect the money from the Opposite Party No.2. He further submitted that due to non- collection of the debit amount the Petitioner is suffering from mental agony. Hence, the Petitioner is compelled to approach this Court for early disposal of the complaint case filed by her. 6. Learned counsel for the State submitted that he has no objection to the prayer of the Petitioner for early disposal of the 1.C.C. Case No.4 of 2021 by the learned J.M.F.C., Page 4 of 5 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Designation: Secretary Reason: Authentication Location: CTC, CUTTACK Date: 19-May-2023 19:38:37 Nimapara, as the prayer of the Petitioner is limited in nature. 7. This Court is of the believe that by fixing time limit for disposal of the cases, the hands of the trial courts are tied. It is basic that hurried justice will result in buried justice. Further, the trust in the judicial system might be eroded if selected cases on the behest of the petitioners like the present one are entertained. There will be a perception that some matters are being heard quickly as the petitioner could move petitions before the High Court. This practice of targeting cases at the behest of some petitioners and prioritize them is nothing but an act of discrimination in favour of some. 8. However, considering the submissions made and innocuous nature of prayer, this Court directs the learned J.M.F.C., Nimapara to make all endeavors to conclude the trial in 1.C.C. Case No.4 of 2021 and dispose of the same as earlier as possible, without neglecting the ready cases older to the present case. 9. The CRLMP is, accordingly, disposed of. Judge ( Dr. S.K. Panigrahi) B.Jhankar Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Designation: Secretary Reason: Authentication Location: CTC, CUTTACK Date: 19-May-2023 19:38:37 Page 5 of 5