Samarendra Sahoo & Ors. v. Urjit @ Urjita Mohanty & Anr.

Judgment

-31.03.2026 Dr. Sanjeeb K Panigrahi, J.

1. The Petitioners, who are the accused persons in I.C.C. Case No. 6707 of 2022 instituted by Opposite Party No. 2, have filed the present petition seeking quashing of the orders dated 15.11.2025 and 28.11.2025 passed by the learned J.M.F.C.-IV, Bhubaneswar. I. FACTUAL MATRIX OF THE CASE:

2. The brief facts of the case are as follows: i. On 28.11.2022, Opposite Party No. 2, as the complainant, filed a complaint against her husband and in-laws, being I.C.C. Case No. Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 23-Apr-2026 13:27:45 6707 of 2022, before the learned J.M.F.C.-IV (Cognizance Taking), Bhubaneswar, alleging commission of offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 294, 307, 323, 420, 506, 507 read with Section 34 IPC along with Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 against the Petitioners, along with a prayer to send the complaint under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. to the I.I.C., Laxmisagar P.S., Bhubaneswar for

registration as an FIR. ii. By order dated 05.12.2022, the learned Magistrate declined the said prayer, observing that the requirements under Sections 154(1) and 154(3) Cr.P.C., as referred to in Priyanka Srivastava & Anr. v. State of U.P.1, had not been complied with, and posted the matter for recording of the initial statement of the complainant. iii. Subsequently, the complainant filed an affidavit described as <initial evidence affidavit= affirmed before a Notary Public. The learned Magistrate proceeded to consider the same and conducted an inquiry under Section 202 Cr.P.C. On 03.01.2023, the statement of one NabaghanaMohanty was recorded. Thereafter, the inquiry was closed upon a memo filed by the complainant. By order dated

10.01.2023, cognizance was taken under Sections 498-A, 294, 307, 323, 420, 506, 507/34 IPC and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, and summons were issued to the Petitioners. iv. Petitioners Nos. 2 to 4 approached this Court in ABLAPL No. 932 of 2023 seeking anticipatory bail, which was disposed of. The said order was challenged before the Supreme Court in SLP (Crl.) No. 12015 (6) SCC 287. Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 23-Apr-2026 13:27:45 2530 of 2023, wherein, by order dated 28.02.2023, notice was issued and interim protection from arrest was granted, with a direction to appear before the trial court as and when required. v. CRLMC No. 1356 of 2023 filed by Petitioner No. 1 was disposed of by order dated 12.04.2023 granting liberty to surrender before the court below and seek bail. The said order was also challenged before the Supreme Court in SLP (Crl.) No. 5354 of 2023. Both SLPs were subsequently dismissed. vi. In the meantime, by order dated 12.03.2023, the learned Magistrate directed issuance of notice to the accused persons in respect of offences under Sections 498-A, 294, 323, 420, 506, 507/34 IPC and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. Petitioners Nos. 2 to 4 appeared through counsel. Non-bailable warrants were issued against Petitioner No. 1, which were subsequently recalled. By order dated 23.11.2023, a petition relating to Section 307 IPC was disposed of. Thereafter, by order dated 02.05.2024, an application under Section 205 Cr.P.C. was allowed, dispensing with the personal appearance of the Petitioners, and the case was posted for evidence before charge. vii. Subsequently, upon the dismissal of the SLPs and the vacation of interim protection, and the same being brought to the notice of the learned Magistrate, the matter continued before the court below. viii. By order dated 15.11.2025, the learned Magistrate observed that the deletion of Section 307 IPC was inadvertent and that the said offence continued to subsist. Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 23-Apr-2026 13:27:45 ix. The Petitioners were directed to appear in person on 28.11.2025. On the said date, a petition filed by the Petitioners under Section 203 Cr.P.C. was rejected and the matter was posted to 03.01.2026. The aforesaid orders are under challenge in the present petition. II. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONERS:

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners made the following submissions in support of his contentions: i. The petitioners submitted that criminal courts below become functus officio the moment a judgment or order is signed, and the bar under Section 362 Cr.P.C. becomes applicable. In such circumstances, the order dated 15.11.2025, whereby the learned Magistrate held that deletion of Section 307 IPC was an inadvertent mistake and that the said offence continued to remain in force, and further directed the personal appearance of the Petitioners on the ground that the case is exclusively triable by a Court of Sessions, is not sustainable in law. ii. It was further submitted that post judgment or order, a court becomes functus officio and recall of orders is permissible only in limited circumstances relating to procedural defects, such as non- service of notice or lack of opportunity of hearing, and not on substantive merits. The recognized categories where recall may be permissible include: (i) procedural defects such as absence of opportunity to the parties; (ii) fraud on the court; (iii) jurisdictional errors apparent on the face of the record; (iv) clerical or arithmetical corrections; and (v) orders which are not final in nature. In order to buttress this argument, the petitioner relied on the decisions of the Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 23-Apr-2026 13:27:45 Supreme Court in Vikram Bakshi & Ors. v. R.P. Khosla & Anr.2 and Maj. Gen. A.S. Gauraya&Anr. v. S.N. Thakur & Anr3. iii. The petitioners contended that inferior criminal courts are not vested with inherent powers to recall or review their earlier orders in the manner civil courts may exercise such powers. Section 362 Cr.P.C. applies universally to all criminal courts and imposes an absolute embargo on alteration or review of judgments or final orders once signed, except for correction of clerical or arithmetical errors such as typographical mistakes or miscalculations. It was submitted that the court cannot revisit the order on merits, even if it is alleged to be erroneous. iv. It was further contended that the reliance placed by Opposite Party No. 2 on Mekha Ram v. State of Rajasthan4 is misplaced, inasmuch as the said judgment arises from civil proceedings invoking the writ jurisdiction of the High Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution. According to the Petitioners, the maxim actus curiae neminemgravabit cannot be invoked to justify setting aside or modifying a judicial order passed by a criminal court below. It is submitted that, unlike civil courts, criminal courts do not possess the power to review their own orders or judgments in view of the bar under Section 362 Cr.P.C., nor do they exercise inherent powers akin to those of the High Courts. 22025 INSC 1020. 3(1986) 2 SCC 709. 42022 SCC Online SC 372. Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 23-Apr-2026 13:27:45 v. The petitioners contended that once the learned Magistrate passed the order dated 23.11.2023, the court became functus officio with respect to any re-determination of the issue, in view of the bar under Section 362 Cr.P.C., which places a clear and absolute prohibition on any court from altering or reviewing its own judgment or final order, save for correction of clerical or arithmetical errors. vi. It was submitted that the learned Magistrate has erred in seeking to revive Section 307 IPC, which, in substance, amounts to a recall or review of the earlier order dated 23.11.2023, an exercise not permissible in law. vii. It was further contended that non-interference by this Court with the order dated 15.11.2025 would result in abuse of the process of court and failure of justice. Accordingly, it was submitted that this Court, in exercise of its inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C., may be pleased to quash the impugned order. viii. It was further submitted that Section 362 Cr.P.C. imposes a statutory bar on courts from altering, reviewing, or recalling their judgments or final orders once signed, except for correction of clerical or arithmetical errors, thereby ensuring finality criminal proceedings, preventing protracted litigation, and reinforcing the doctrine of functus officio. ix. It was also contended by the Petitioners that after declining the prayer of the complainant under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., the learned Magistrate had directed her to appear in person for recording of her initial statement as mandatorily required under Section 200 Cr.P.C. Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 23-Apr-2026 13:27:45 However, instead of appearing and making a statement on oath before the learned Magistrate, the complainant filed an affidavit, which, according to the Petitioners, is not a mode of compliance recognized under the procedural law. x. It was further submitted that Section 200 Cr.P.C. mandates that the complainant shall depose on oath before the Magistrate, who is required to record such statement and obtain the signature of the complainant, and to sign the same in token of having recorded it. In the absence of such compliance, it is contended that the complaint ought to have been dismissed at the threshold. Reliance was placed on Nazir Ahmad v. King Emperor5, wherein it was observed that where a power is given to do a certain thing in a particular manner, it must be done in that manner or not at all, and that other methods of performance are necessarily forbidden, the said principle being applicable to proceedings regulated by the Cr.P.C. This doctrine has its root in Taylor -vrs.- Taylor6 and often being followed in common wealth law. xi. It was contended by the Petitioners that the initiation of the present criminal proceeding by way of complaint amounts to an abuse of the process of law and has been undertaken with a malicious intent arising out of matrimonial disputes. It was submitted that the complaint reflects allegations against multiple family members, which, according to the Petitioners, are vague and omnibus in nature. In this regard, reliance is placed on the decision of the 5AIR 1936 PC 253. 6 (1875) 1 Ch. D 426, 431 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 23-Apr-2026 13:27:45 Supreme Court in Kahkashan Kausar @ Sonam v. State of Bihar7, wherein it was held that permitting prosecution on the basis of such general allegations against family members may amount to abuse of the process of law. Reliance was also placed on Preeti Gupta v. State of Jharkhand8, wherein it was observed that there has been a tendency to implicate the husband and his relatives in matrimonial disputes. xii. It was contended that no prima facie case for the offence under Section 307 IPC is made out. It was submitted that the allegation under Section 307 IPC is unfounded, inasmuch as the medical report of the complainant records the history as: <patient presented with a cut over the left wrist with a shaving blade,= which, according to the Petitioners, indicates a self-inflicted injury. It was further submitted that this aspect has been taken note of by this Court in ABLAPL No. 932 of 2023, wherein it was observed that the offence under Section 307 IPC was not attracted against the Petitioners. xiii. It was contended by the Petitioners that the submission of Opposite Party No. 2, to the effect that the order dated 23.11.2023 passed by the learned Magistrate was a <wrong order,= is misconceived. It was submitted that the learned J.M.F.C., upon consideration of the order of the Hon9ble Supreme Court and the materials on record, had concluded that summons ought not to be issued under Section 307 IPC, and such determination constituted a conscious judicial act. It was further contended that the said order cannot be treated as a 7 (2022) SCC Online SC162. 8(2010) 7 SCC 667. Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 23-Apr-2026 13:27:45 clerical or inadvertent error so as to justify its subsequent modification. In such circumstances, it was submitted that this Court may exercise its inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the impugned order dated 15.11.2025 in order to secure the ends of justice. III. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE OPPOSITE PARTIES:

4. Per contra, learned counsel for the opposite parties made the following submissions in support of his contentions: i. The learned J.M.F.C., by order dated 23.11.2023, had issued summons under Sections 498-A, 294, 323, 420, 506, 507/34 IPC read with Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, while rejecting the application filed by the Petitioners for deletion of Section 307 IPC. However, at the same time, summons under Section 307 IPC were not issued, which, according to the Opposite Party, constitutes an inadvertent omission and a procedural lapse on the part of the learned Magistrate, capable of being corrected. In this regard, reliance is placed on Section 362 Cr.P.C., which provides that no court, after signing its judgment or final order, shall alter or review the same except to correct clerical or arithmetical errors. ii. It was further submitted that there is no bar under Section 362 Cr.P.C. in the present case, as the said provision applies to judgments or final orders, whereas the order in question is stated to be an interim order. It is thus contended that a procedural correction or review of such an order is not expressly barred by law. Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 23-Apr-2026 13:27:45 iii. iv. It was contended that there exists a distinction between a procedural review and a substantive review, and that in the present case, the learned J.M.F.C. has undertaken only a procedural review. It was submitted that by order dated 10.01.2023, cognizance had already been taken under, inter alia, Section 307 IPC. Subsequently, the Petitioners filed an application dated 25.08.2023 seeking deletion of the said offence, which was rejected by the learned J.M.F.C. by order dated 23.11.2023. However, it was contended that, at the same time, the learned Magistrate, on account of a misunderstanding of the interim order dated 28.02.2023 passed by the Supreme Court, did not issue summons under Section 307 IPC, which resulted in an inadvertent benefit to the accused persons. It was thus submitted that the subsequent action of the learned Magistrate was only to correct such procedural lapse and not to undertake any substantive review of the earlier order. v. By order dated 15.11.2025, the learned J.M.F.C. directed the Petitioners to appear before the Court and varied the earlier order. It was contended that the order issuing summons is in the nature of an interim order and not a judgment or final order, and therefore, the same can be varied. In this regard, reliance was placed on Ganesh Patel v. UmakantRajoria9, wherein it was observed that an application seeking recall of an order is maintainable where it pertains to a procedural review and not a substantive review, to which Section 362 Cr.P.C. would apply. It was thus submitted that in 92022 SCC OnLine SC 2050. Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 23-Apr-2026 13:27:45 the present case, the action of the learned Magistrate amounts to a procedural correction of an earlier order and is not hit by the bar under Section 362 Cr.P.C. vi. The learned J.M.F.C. has taken note of the order dated 30.07.2024 passed by the Supreme Court in SLP (Crl.) No. 2530 of 2023, whereby the interim order dated 28.02.2023 stood vacated, and that there was no direction for deletion of Section 307 IPC. It was contended that, in view of the cognizance order dated 10.01.2023 including the said offence, the case is exclusively triable by a Court of Sessions, and accordingly, the learned Magistrate has proceeded to post the matter for compliance under Section 208 Cr.P.C. vii. It was further submitted on behalf of Opposite Party No. 2 that no party can be permitted to derive benefit from an erroneous order passed by a court. Reliance was placed on the legal maxim actus curiae neminemgravabit, which signifies that no person should suffer prejudice or injustice due to an act or mistake of the court. It was contended that the said principle is applicable to both civil and criminal proceedings and has been recently applied by the Supreme Court in High Court Bar Association, Allahabad v. State of Uttar Pradesh10. viii. It was submitted that the cognizance order dated 10.01.2023 had expressly included Section 307 IPC, and such cognizance was taken upon due application of judicial mind by the learned J.M.F.C. in I.C.C. Case No. 6707 of 2022. 10Criminal Appeal No.3589 of 2023. Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 23-Apr-2026 13:27:45 ix. It was contended that the Petitioners are seeking to mislead this Court, inasmuch as they had themselves filed an application dated

25.08.2023 before the learned Magistrate seeking deletion of the offence under Section 307 IPC, as reflected in the order dated

23.11.2023, which came to be rejected. x. It was submitted that although the application filed by the Petitioners for deletion of Section 307 IPC was rejected by order dated 23.11.2023, learned Magistrate, on account of a misunderstanding of the order dated 28.02.2023 passed by the Supreme Court in SLP (Crl.) No. 2530 of 2023, did not proceed in respect of the said offence. It was further submitted that upon the interim protection being vacated by the Supreme Court by order dated 30.07.2024, the learned Magistrate, by order dated 15.11.2025, corrected the said procedural lapse and proceeded in accordance with the earlier cognizance order in I.C.C. Case No. 6707 of 2022. xi. The present petition is devoid of merits and is liable to be dismissed. It was further submitted that the Petitioners are not entitled to any relief as sought in the prayer clause. IV. COURT9S REASONING AND ANALYSIS:

1. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials available on record.

2. The principal contention raised on behalf of the Petitioners is that the learned Magistrate, by order dated 15.11.2025, has impermissibly reviewed and altered the earlier order dated 23.11.2023 by reviving the offence Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 23-Apr-2026 13:27:45 under Section 307 IPC, which is contended to be barred under Section 362 Cr.P.C.

3. In order to appreciate the said contention, it is necessary to examine the nature of the orders passed by the learned Magistrate. The record indicates that by order dated 10.01.2023, the learned Magistrate had taken cognizance of offences including Section 307 IPC upon being prima facie satisfied of the materials available on record. The said cognizance order has not been set aside or modified by any superior court.

4. Subsequently, although an application was filed by the Petitioners seeking deletion of the offence under Section 307 IPC, and certain proceedings thereafter reflected that summons were not issued in respect of the said offence, it is evident from the order dated 15.11.2025 that the learned Magistrate treated the omission to proceed under Section 307 IPC as an inadvertent deviation from the original cognizance order.

5. A careful reading of the impugned order dated 15.11.2025 shows that the learned Magistrate has not undertaken any fresh adjudication on the merits of the offence under Section 307 IPC, nor has he reconsidered the sufficiency of material for taking cognizance. The reasoning is confined to the fact that cognizance having already been taken under the said provision, and there being no express direction from any superior court for deletion thereof, the proceedings ought to continue in accordance with the original cognizance order.

6. In this context, the distinction between a review of a final order and a procedural correction or continuation of proceedings in terms of an existing order assumes significance. The embargo under Section 362 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 23-Apr-2026 13:27:45 Cr.P.C. is attracted where a court seeks to alter or review its judgment or final order on merits. However, where the court merely proceeds in conformity with its earlier subsisting order, without re-adjudicating the issue, such action cannot be construed as a review in the strict sense.

7. In the present case, the cognizance order dated 10.01.2023, which included Section 307 IPC, continues to hold the field. The order dated 23.11.2023 did not result in deletion of the said offence by way of a final adjudication setting aside the cognizance, but forms part of the procedural trajectory of the case. The learned Magistrate, by the impugned order dated 15.11.2025, has aligned the subsequent proceedings with the original cognizance order.

8. The submission of the Petitioners that the learned Magistrate has become functus officio and was barred from proceeding in respect of Section 307 IPC, therefore, cannot be accepted in the facts of the present case, as no final order terminating or conclusively modifying the cognizance in respect of the said offence has been demonstrated.

9. It is also pertinent to note that the question as to whether the ingredients of the offence under Section 307 IPC are ultimately made out is a matter to be considered at the appropriate stage in accordance with law, including at the stage of framing of charge. At the present stage, no jurisdictional error, illegality, or perversity is made out so as to warrant interference in exercise of inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

10. So far as the rejection of the application under Section 203 Cr.P.C. is concerned, once cognizance has been taken and process issued, the stage Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 23-Apr-2026 13:27:45 contemplated under Section 203 Cr.P.C. stands exhausted. The learned Magistrate has, therefore, rightly declined to entertain the said application.

11. The direction requiring personal appearance of the Petitioners, particularly in a case which is triable by a Court of Sessions and necessitates compliance under Section 208 Cr.P.C., cannot be said to be without jurisdiction or arbitrary. V. CONCLUSION:

12. In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court does not find any illegality, perversity, or jurisdictional error in the impugned orders dated 15.11.2025 and 28.11.2025 passed by the learned J.M.F.C.-IV, Bhubaneswar, so as to warrant interference in exercise of inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

13. Accordingly, the present CRLMC stands dismissed.

15. It is, however, observed that the Petitioners shall be at liberty to raise all permissible contentions at the appropriate stage in accordance with law, including at the stage of framing of charge. Interim order, if any, passed earlier stands vacated. (Dr. Sanjeeb K Panigrahi) Judge Orissa High Court, Cuttack, Dated the 31st March, 2026/