The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK CRLMC No.1594 of 2025 Ara Sekhar ..... Petitioner Represented By Adv. – Mr. L.N. Patel State of Odisha -versus- ..... Opposite Party Represented By Adv. – Ms. Babita Kumari Sahu, AGA
Legal Reasoning
CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR MOHAPATRA Order No.
Decision
ORDER 28.07.2025 01. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual /Physical Mode). 2. Heard the learned counsel for the Petitioner as well as learned counsel for the State-State. Perused the application as well as the documents annexed thereto. 3. The present application has been filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. thereby the Petitioner wants to invoke the inherent power of this Court for quashing the order dated 13.03.2025 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Koraput in Criminal Revision Case No.04 of 2024 and order dated 21.06.2024 passed by the learned S.D.J.M., Koraput in G.R. Case No.657 of 2021. 4. The present application arises out of an application filed by the Petitioner under Section 91 of Cr.P.C. before the learned S.D.J.M., Koraput in G.R. Case No.657 of 2021 wherein the Page 1 of 5. Petitioner-Informant had prayed for acceptance of certain documents under Section 91 of the Cr.P.C. which were not seized by the police in course of the investigation. 5. Learned counsel for the Petitioner, at this juncture, contended that such documents are relevant for the purpose of just decision of the case. Accordingly, he moved an application before the trial court under Section 91 of Cr.P.C. However, such application having been rejected, the Petitioner has approached this Court by filing the present application. 6. Learned counsel for the Petitioner further submitted that the accused persons are the employees of Bajaj Finance Company (Bajaj Finserv) and that they have taken advantage of internal mechanism of work for their financial benefits and for their wrongful gain. Such conduct of the accused persons came to light after it was detected during the audit and verification of the documents. It was emphatically argued by the learned counsel for the Petitioner-Informant that the accused persons have cheated the valuable customers as well as the company which has automatically resulted in wrongful gain to the accused persons and that public money has been wrongfully misappropriated by the accused persons, for which, they are liable to be punished under the alleged sections of the Indian Penal Code. He further contended that the I.O. in course of investigation did not seize accounts of the customers along with documents and that such account statement and other details are very much available in the office of the Bajaj Finance Limited, Koraput. He further Page 2 of 5. contended that such documents have a direct bearing of the outcome of the present trial and the same will also help him to establish the guilt of the accused persons. The details of such accounts along with the agreement number have also been provided in the application filed by the Petitioner under Section 91 of Cr.P.C. However, the trial court, vide order dated 21.06.2024, initially rejected the said application on the ground that those are secondary evidence and the Petitioner has failed to lay the foundation for acceptance of such secondary evidence. The order passed by the learned S.D.J.M., Koraput was challenged before the revisional court by filing Criminal Revision No.4 of 2024. Learned Additional Sessions Judge, Koraput vide his order dated 13.03.2025 under Annexure-4 to the application has rejected the revision petition and thereby confirmed the order passed by the trial court. Being aggrieved by such order, the Petitioner has approached this Court by filing the present application under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. 7. Learned counsel for the State, at the outset, objected to the maintainability of the present application. She further submitted that after rejection of revision petition, the Petitioner sought for invocation of power of this Court to quash on order passed by the revisional court under Section 397 of Cr.P.C. In such view of the matter, learned counsel for the State contended that the present CRLMC application is not maintainable in view of the provisions contained in Section 397 of Cr.P.C. With regard to the merits of the matter, learned counsel for the State submitted that both the Page 3 of 5. trial court as well as revisional court have been pleased to reject the application of the Petitioner by passing a reasoned and detailed order. Since the documents which the Petitioner wants to introduce with the aid of Section 91 of Cr.P.C. are not original documents, the learned counsel for the State contended that both the courts below have rightly rejected such prayer of the Petitioner. She further contended that it is always open to the court to call for any documents in the event the trial court is convinced with regard to the documents that is to be introduced by either side in course of trial. On such ground, learned counsel for the State contended that the trial court has not committed any illegality in rejecting the application of the Petitioner under Annexure-1 to the application. 8. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties and on a careful examination of the background facts as well as the documents annexed to the writ petition, further on a close scrutiny of the impugned order dated 21.06.2024 passed by the learned S.D.J.M., Koraput under Annexure-2 passed by the learned S.D.J.M., Koraput and the order dated 13.03.2025 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Koraput in Criminal Revision No.04 of 2024 under Annexure-4 preferred by the present Petitioner, it appears that the same have been disposed of by passing reasoned and speaking orders. 9. On a careful analysis of the impugned orders, this Court is of the view that the both of the courts below have not committed any illegality by passing the order under Annexures-2 and 4 Page 4 of 5. respectively. As such, the orders under Annexures-2 and 4 do not call for any interference by this Court at this stage. 10. While disposing of the present application, this Court grants liberty to the Petitioner to file an appropriate application before the trial court which shall be considered by the trial court in accordance with law. 11. With the aforesaid observation and direction, the CRLMC stands disposed of. Debasis ( A.K. Mohapatra ) Judge Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: DEBASIS AECH Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT Date: 30-Jul-2025 15:36:06 Page 5 of 5.