IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK CRLMC No. 3945 of 2016 1. Bimal Kumar Maity 2. Sandhya @ Laxmipriya Maity 3. Subala Habli 4. Kalia @ Kalipada Mandal 5. Khokan Parida 6. Ghangu @ Bibhasa Parida ….. Petitioners Mr. Priyanshu Panda, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Manas Chand, Advocate -versus- 1. State of Odisha 2. Basudev Mandal 3. Saraswati Mandal ….. Opp. Parties Mr. Sarathi Jyoti Mohanty, ASC CORAM: HON’BLE MISS JUSTICE SAVITRI RATHO ORDER 06.02.2026 Order No. 14. (Through hybrid Mode) 1. The order of cognizance dated 20.06.2016 and investigation and further proceeding in Talachua Marine P.S. Case No 07 of 2016 corresponding to G.R Case No 40 of 2016 in the file of the learned J.M.F.C, Rajnagar has been challenged. 2. Perusal of the order sheet reveals that this CRLMC was filed in December, 2016. It had been adjourned till 2019 either on prayer of the petitioner or by the Court as there was no appearance on behalf of the petitioner. Thereafter, it had been listed on 13.10.2022, when the learned counsel for the petitioner had been granted time till 03.11.2022 to appraise the Court about the status of the case by producing the certified copy of the last date order sheet of the original case. Thereafter, the matter had been adjourned to 03.11.2022 and on 28.11.2022, the matter was directed to be listed before some other bench. 3. It also appears defects had not been removed in this case for which on 17.06.2025, this matter had been directed to be listed after removal of the defects. 4. Today when the matter was called in the first hour, prayer for adjournment was made on behalf of Mr. Manas Chand, learned counsel for the Petitioner for which the matter was passed over and taken up after recess. 5. When the matter is called after recess, Mr. Priyanshu Panda, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Mr. Manas Chand, learned counsel for the Petitioner prayed for an adjournment of one week in order to obtain instructions. 6. Order dated 13.10.2022 passed by this Court has not been complied with by the Petitioner as certified copy of the last order in the original case has not been filed till date. 7. In view of the fact that the order dated 20.06.2016 has been challenged in this case and in the meanwhile, more than 9 years have elapsed and no interim order has been passed by this Court nor order dated 13.10.2022 of this Court to file the order of the learned court below has been complied, I am not inclined to grant adjournment or entertain this CRLMC. 8. The CRLMC is accordingly dismissed. 9. In case the proceeding is still pending in the learned court below, it is open to the Petitioners to raise their contentions in the court below at the appropriate stage. 10. Urgent certified copy of this order be granted on proper application. (Savitri Ratho) Judge puspa