p. 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK CRLMC No.2846 of 2025 Prabin Kumar Barik & Ors. &. Petitioner(s) Mr. Ajit Kumar Raut, Adv. -versus- State of Odisha & Anr. &. Opposite Party(s) Mr. Debasish Nayak, AGA Mr. Rakesh Behera, Adv. (for O.P. No.2) CORAM: HON9BLE DR.JUSTICE SANJEEB K PANIGRAHI Order No. 02. ORDER 21.04.2026 1. This matter is taken up through hybrid arrangement. 2. By filing the present CRLMC, the Petitioners have prayed for quashing the entire criminal proceedings initiated against them vide 1 C.C. Case No.10 of 2024 pending before the learned S.D.J.M., Talcher, under Annexure-1. 3. Heard learned counsel for all the parties. 4. Learned counsel for the Petitioners submits that the dispute between the parties is purely civil in nature and has been given a criminal colour with an ulterior motive to harass the Petitioners. It is contended that the complaint petition does not disclose the essential ingredients of any criminal offence and continuation of the criminal proceeding would amount to abuse of the process of the Court. Digitally Signed Signed by: SIPUN BEHERA Designation: Senior Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK Date: 22-Apr-2026 17:30:18 Signature Not Verified p. 2 Accordingly, it is prayed that the proceeding be quashed in exercise of inherent powers of this Court. 5. Learned counsel for Opposite Party No.2, on the other hand, submits that the learned trial Court, upon due consideration, has already rejected the discharge petition filed by the present Petitioners and has proceeded to frame charges. It is further submitted that the allegations made in the complaint petition, if taken at their face value, prima facie disclose commission of cognizable offences. Therefore, interference at this stage is unwarranted. 6. On perusal of the record and considering the rival submissions, this Court finds that the learned trial Court has already applied its judicial mind while rejecting the discharge petition and framing charges against the Petitioners. It is well settled that at the stage of framing of charge, the Court is only required to ascertain whether a prima facie case exists and not to conduct a roving enquiry into the merits of the case. 7. The contention of the Petitioners that the dispute is civil in nature cannot, by itself, be a ground for quashing the criminal proceeding when the allegations disclose the ingredients of a criminal offence. The Supreme Court has consistently held that where the allegations in the complaint constitute both civil liability and criminal offence, the p. 3 criminal proceeding cannot be quashed merely on the ground that the dispute has a civil profile. 8. Further, the scope of interference under Section 528 of BNSS (Section 482 of the Cr.P.C.) is limited and is to be exercised sparingly, with great caution and only when the Court is convinced that continuation of the proceeding would amount to abuse of the process of law or that the complaint does not disclose any offence whatsoever. In the present case, such exceptional circumstances are not made out. 9. At this juncture, this Court is not inclined to evaluate the evidentiary aspects or adjudicate upon the disputed questions of fact, which are matters to be considered by the learned trial Court during the course of trial. 10. In view of the aforesaid facts and settled position of law, this Court is of the considered opinion that the Petitioners have failed to make out a case for quashing of the criminal proceeding. 11. Accordingly, the CRLMC stands dismissed. 12. Pending application (s), if any, shall stand disposed of. 13. Interim order, if any, passed earlier shall stand vacated. (Dr. Sanjeeb K Panigrahi) Judge Sipun