p. 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK CRLMC No. 5499 of 2023 Santosh Kumar Sharma & another …. Petitioner(s) Mr. G.N. Rout, Advocate -versus- State of Odisha and another …. Opposite party(s) Mr. Kasinath Pattnaik, Advocate CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SIBO SANKAR MISHRA Order No. ORDER 02.07.2026 04. 1. Heard. 2. The petitioners have invoked the inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. assailing the order dated 07.09.2021 passed by the learned JMFC (Cog.taking-I), Cuttack in 1.C.C. Case No. 236 of 2020, whereby the trial court has been pleased to take cognizance of offence under Section 138 of the N.I. Act. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner drawing the attention of this Court to the complaint of the petitioner particularly in para-12 and para-13 of the petition submits that it is an admitted fact that accused no.1- Ramachandra Sharma has issued the cheque alleged to p. 2 have been got dishonored on presentation to the bank, for which the complaint case has been filed. Reading of para-12 of the complaint petition further clarifies that in so far as the present petitioners are concerned they have nothing to do for issuance of the cheque. It is also contended that statutory legal notice under Section 138 of the N.I. Act was also not issued to the present petitioners. This position has also been admitted in the complaint. However, contrary to the admitted position, as has been reflected in the complaint case and related documents, the learned trial court has taken cognizance against the three accused persons including the present petitioners. 4. It is fairly contended by learned counsel for the opposite party that in fact the other panel offences are attracted against the present petitioners/accused persons, for which he reserves right to proceed, but in so far as offence under Section 138 of the N.I. Act is concerned, the order of cognizance may not sustain qua the present petitioners. 5. Taking into consideration the averments made in the petition and the admitted fact illuminating on record, I am inclined to allow this petition. Accordingly, the order dated 07.09.2021 passed by the learned JMFC (Cog.taking-I), Cuttack in 1.C.C. Case No. 236 of 2020 p. 3 taking cognizance of offence against the petitioner under Section 138 of N.I. Act stands quashed. 6. It is brought to the notice of this Court that the complaint case has been filed in the year 2020, but for the pendency of the present petition the same has not yet been disposed of. The statutory command under Section 143 (3) of the N.I. Act demands that the complaint of the nature should have been concluded within a period of six months. However, unfortunately the complaint case is prolonging since last six years. 7. Therefore, I am constraint to direct the learned JMFC, Cuttack to do well to see that the complaint case, i.e., 1.C.C. No. 236 of 2020 shall be tried and concluded, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of four months hence. The trial court shall not entertain any request of unnecessary adjournment to either party. 8. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the CRLMC is disposed of. Ashok ( S.S. Mishra) Judge MOHAPATRA