IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK CRLMC No.4197 of 2024 Rakesh Mahato @ Rakesh Kumar Mahato …. Petitioner(s) Mr. Ramesh Agarwal, Adv. Ms. R. Rajgarhia, Adv. -versus- State of Orissa & Anr. …. Opposite Party(s) Mr. Amitav Pradhan, ASC Mr. Bhawani Shankar Panigrahi, Adv. CORAM: HON’BLE DR.JUSTICE SANJEEB K PANIGRAHI Order No. ORDER 28.01.2026 07. 1. This matter is taken up through hybrid arrangement. 2. In filing this CRLMC, the Petitioner being the husband of the Opposite Party No.2, has prayed for quashing the order of cognizance dated 06.07.2024 passed by the learned J.M.F.C (Rural), Rourkela in G.R. Case No.1072 of 2023 arising out of Birsa P.S. Case No.173/2023. Apart from the above, the Petitioner has also prayed for quashing the entire criminal proceeding initiated against him which is pending before the Court of learned J.M.F.C (Rural), Rourkela. 3. Heard. Digitally Signed Signed by: AYASKANTA JENA Designation: Personal Assistant Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa Date: 29-Jan-2026 18:48:40 Signature Not Verified 4. Learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that the above noted criminal proceeding has been initiated due to some matrimonial dispute. She further contends that the Petitioner has never tortured his wife-Opposite Party No.2 physically nor has he asked his wife to give him dowry. She also contends that the wife-Opposite Party No.2 has lodged F.I.R against him on being biased by her paternal parents. She, accordingly, prays for allowing the prayer made in this CRLMC. 5. In his opposition, learned counsel for the State submits that upon lodging of the F.I.R since the charge-sheet has been submitted and based on the said charge-sheet, order of cognizance has been passed which is impugned herein, there is no compelling reasons to quash the entire proceeding at this stage. He further contends that the truth will come only after conclusion of the trial. He, accordingly, prays for dismissal of this CRLMC. 6. Considering the submissions made on behalf of both the parties and since the order of cognizance has already been passed, this Court is of the view that whether the Petitioner has committed any such offences or not, can only be answered after conclusion of the trial. It is also well settled that the appreciation of evidence is a function of the trial court. This Court in exercise of power under Section 482 Cr.P.C cannot assume such jurisdiction and Digitally Signed Signed by: AYASKANTA JENA Designation: Personal Assistant Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa Date: 29-Jan-2026 18:48:40 put an end to the process of trial provided under the law. The power under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C at the pre-trial stage should not be used in a routine manner, but it has to be used sparingly only in such an appropriate cases, where it manifestly appears that there is a legal bar against the institution or continuation of the criminal proceedings. This Court, in the present context, declines to quash the entire above noted criminal proceeding initiated against the Petitioners. 7. This CRLMC is, accordingly, dismissed. (Dr. Sanjeeb K Panigrahi) Judge Ayaskanta Designation: Personal Assistant