The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK CRLREV No.460 of 2023 Ganesh Kumar Pattanaik …. Petitioner Mr. S.K. Bhanjadeo, Advocate -Versus- State of Odisha & others …. Opposite parties Mr. S. Swain, AGA Ms. P.P. Mohanty, Advocate (O.P. No.5) CORAM: MR. JUSTICE R.K. PATTANAIK
Decision
ORDER 13.08.2025 Order No. 05. 1. Heard Mr. Bhanjadeo, learned counsel for the petitioner, Ms. Mohanty, learned counsel for opposite party No.5 and Mr. Swain, learned AGA for the State. 2. Instant revision is filed by the petitioner assailing the impugned orders dated 27th April, 2023 and 6th July, 2023 passed in Cr.M.C. No.16 of 2023 by the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Chhatrapur in a proceeding initiated under Section 144 Cr.P.C. with dismissal of the application dated 11th May, 2023 as at Annexure-4 and such other applications while dealing with and in respect of Shop Room No.11 (Ground Floor) situate in the Market Complex, Bada Bazar, Ganjam on the grounds stated therein and to the extent indicated. Page 1 of 5 3. Referring to the impugned orders at Annexure-5 series, Mr. Bhanjadeo, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that not only the application i.e. Annexure-4 and others dated 11th May, 2023 and 25th May, 2023 filed by the petitioner were rejected as devoid of merit but also, at the same time, concerned shop room was locked by the local Police alleging breach of peace between the parties. The further submission is that the learned Court below could not have held opposite party No.5 as the absolute owner in respect of the case plot in a proceeding under Section 144 Cr.P.C. The contention is that even though the learned Court below reached at the conclusion that the breach of peace existed accepting a report from the local P.S. it could not have rendered a decision on ownership in respect of the shop room while dismissing the application such as Annexure-4 and the ones subsequently filed on 25th May, 2023 leading to the locking of the same and that too, in a proceeding initiated under Section 144 Cr.P.C., hence, therefore, to that extent, the impugned order i.e. Annexure-5 series dated 6th July, 2023 is liable to be interfered with followed by a consequential directions issued. 4. Ms. Mohanty, learned counsel for opposite party No.5 requests for an adjournment to take instructions. However, this Court is not inclined to adjourn the hearing of the matter, as the revision is a year-old one and hence, disposing of the same by following order. 5. Recorded the submission of Mr. Swain, learned AGA for the State, according to whom, the learned Court below did Page 2 of 5 not err or commit any serious illegality and rightly directed the local P.S. to keep the close watch on the law and order situation involving the parties over and above in respect of the schedule property due to existence of breach of peace. It is further submitted that at this distant point of time, the Court should not consider the plea of the petitioner in respect of the property involved as in any case the impugned order dated 6th July, 2023 is related to a proceeding said to have been dropped. 6. The proceeding in question is involving a property, namely, the shop room with the rival claim advanced and according to the petitioner, he was running a hotel/restaurant from there. In view of the dispute between the petitioner and opposite party No.5, such a proceeding under Section 144 Cr.P.C. was initiated and as earlier stated, it led to the passing of the impugned orders i.e. annexure-5 series dated 6th July, 2023 closing the proceeding finally, however, directing the local Police to keep close watch on the parties in view of the law and order issue. On a reading of the said order dated 6th July, 2023, this Court finds that the learned fact finding Court upon receiving such report from the I.I.C, Ganjam P.S. and in view of imminent breach of peace existed between the parties though dropped the proceeding but at the same time, directed the I.I.C. concerned to keep a close watch on the law and order situation involving the schedule property. 7. The contention of Mr. Bhanjadeo, learned counsel for the petitioner is that the learned Court below did not have the authority to direct the local Police to lock the shop room. On a Page 3 of 5 reading of the impugned order dated 6th July, 2023, it does not reveal so. However, it is claimed by the petitioner that the shop room was locked by the local Police. In fact, the petitioner moved the learned Court below with applications seeking direction to the local Police to open the shop but he was unsuccessful, as it was found to be without merit and rejected. Under the above circumstances and since the proceeding is of the year 2023 and of course, the parties have rights to approach the Civil Court claiming ownership in respect of the shop room but having regard to the fact that it has been locked ever since then and there has been no reason assigned in the impugned order dated 6th July, 2023, while disposing of the application i.e. Annexure-4 and such other request received on 11th May, 2023 and 25th May, 2023, this Court is of the view that the decision may be revisited with a proper hearing allowed to him as well as opposite party No.5 as such course of action would serve the purpose and meet the ends of justice. 8. 9. Accordingly, it is ordered. In the result, the revision petition stands disposed of with the direction to the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Chhatrapur to reconsider the application as at Annexure-4 and subsequent applications received on 11th May, 2023 and 25th May, 2023 seeking a direction to the local P.S to unlock the shop in connection with the proceeding in Cr.M.C. No.16 of 2023 restored to file only to the aforesaid extent and thereafter, to pass appropriate order as per and in accordance with law. It is made clear that the Court has not expressed anything on the Page 4 of 5 merits of the alleged claim and hence, all such applications including Annexure-4 shall be considered and disposed of in accordance with law providing reasonable opportunity of hearing to the parties followed by an order at the earliest preferably within eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. 10. Issue urgent certified copy as per rules. (R.K. Pattanaik) Judge Alok Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: ALOK RANJAN SETHY Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT Date: 19-Aug-2025 11:23:33 Page 5 of 5