Page 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK CRLMC No.5586 of 2025 (A petition under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.) Ramanarayan Bal @ Ramnarayan Bal &. Petitioner(s) -versus- State of Odisha & Anr. &. Opposite Party(s) Advocates appeared in the case through Hybrid Mode: For Petitioner(s) : Ms. Sonia Mathur, Senior Advocate along with associates Mr. Subham Satapathy, Advocate For Opposite Party(s) : Ms. Gayatri Patra, ASC Mr. Siddharth Dave, Senior Advocate along with associates for O.P No.3 Mr. Satya Smruti Mohanty, Advocate Mr. Sarvavid S. Pradhan, Advocate Ms. Prakriti Pattnaik, Advocate CORAM: DR. JUSTICE SANJEEB K PANIGRAHI DATE OF HEARING:-17.03.2026 DATE OF JUDGMENT:-31.03.2026 Dr. Sanjeeb K Panigrahi, J. 1. The present petition has been filed seeking quashing of FIR No. 17 dated 28.10.2025, registered at the Economic Offences Wing, Bhubaneswar, Khordha, under Sections 318(4), 319(2), 338, 336(3), 340(2), 341(1) and 61(2) Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 23-Apr-2026 12:43:01 Signature Not Verified Page 2 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, insofar as it relates to the present Petitioner. I. FACTUAL MATRIX OF THE CASE: 2. The brief facts of the case are as follows: i. Opposite Party No. 3, namely World Venture Ltd., through its Accountant, lodged a written complaint before the Economic Offences Wing, Bhubaneswar, District Khordha on 28.10.2025 alleging commission of cognizable offences, pursuant to which FIR No. 17 of 2025 came to be registered under Sections 318(4), 319(2), 338, 336(3), 340(2), 341(1) and 61(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. ii. The prosecution case, as borne out from the FIR and materials on record, is that one Mahesh Singh introduced the present Petitioner to the complainant company, whereafter the Petitioner represented himself to be an employee of the State Bank of India and induced the complainant to purchase assets allegedly held by the bank at prices lower than the prevailing market value. Acting on such representations, the complainant company entered into multiple transactions for purchase of properties and transferred substantial amounts of money, aggregating to approximately Rs. 14,01,83,039/-, to an account purportedly shown to belong to an official of the State Bank of India. The payments were made in several instalments between November 2024 and October 2025 pursuant to purported sale agreements and sale certificates. It subsequently came to light that the said account did not belong to the State Bank of India but Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 23-Apr-2026 12:43:01 Signature Not Verified Page 3 was, in fact, the personal account of the Petitioner. It is further alleged that the Petitioner impersonated a bank official, used forged seals and fabricated documents, and thereby induced the complainant to part with huge sums of money with dishonest intention from the inception. iii. During the course of investigation, various documents including sale agreements, sale certificates and allotment letters were seized. It further came to light that the Petitioner had earlier been employed as a Sales Executive with SBI Cap Securities Ltd., Bhubaneswar, but was suspended on 22.12.2023 and subsequently terminated on 28.05.2024. Despite such termination, he allegedly continued to misrepresent himself as being associated with the bank. iv. The Petitioner was arrested on 29.10.2025. The investigation also revealed his involvement in similar transactions with other individuals, resulting in financial loss to multiple persons, as well as the existence of prior criminal cases against him. v. The present petition has been filed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 seeking quashing of the aforesaid FIR, inter alia, on the grounds that the dispute is civil in nature and that the FIR has been registered by referring to provisions of the repealed Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. II. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER: 3. Learned counsel for the Petitioner made the following submissions in support of his contentions: Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 23-Apr-2026 12:43:01 Signature Not Verified Page 4 i. The Petitioner submitted that the complaint was made on 28.10.2025 and, on the very same day, without any application of mind or conducting a preliminary enquiry, the FIR was registered by the Economic Offences Wing. It was contended that in cases involving financial and economic disputes, a preliminary enquiry is mandatory to ascertain criminality and prevent abuse of process. In order to support this argument, the Petitioner placed reliance on the decision in Lalita Kumari v. Government of Uttar Pradesh1.It was further contended that as per applicable guidelines governing the functioning of EOW, a preliminary enquiry is required in economic offences, which has not been conducted in the present case. ii. The Petitioner asserted that the FIR has been registered under Section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, despite the said enactment having been repealed with effect from 01.07.2024, and replaced by the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.It was contended that the FIR ought to have been registered under Section 173 of the BNSS, and registration under a repealed statute is not a mere technical defect but a substantive illegality, vitiating the entire proceedings and rendering the investigation without jurisdiction. iii. The Petitioner contended that the Economic Offences Wing is a specialised agency meant to deal with cases involving public money and systemic or organised fraud. According to the Petitioner, the present dispute is a private commercial dispute between parties and does not involve any public funds or public investors.It was further 1(2014) 2 SCC 1. Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 23-Apr-2026 12:43:01 Signature Not Verified Page 5 submitted that even the communication issued by the Superintendent of Police, EOW, acknowledges that the present case does not involve public money or organised fraud, thereby rendering the assumption of jurisdiction by EOW ultra vires. iv. The Petitioner submitted that the dispute arises out of a commercial transaction involving negotiations, sale agreements and financial dealings between private parties. It was contended that the complainant voluntarily entered into the transactions with full knowledge and intention to derive commercial benefit. It was further argued that criminal proceedings have been initiated as a coercive mechanism to recover money arising out of a failed commercial arrangement, and that criminal law cannot be invoked to settle civil disputes. Reliance was placed on Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. v. Mohd. SharafulHaque2 and Naresh Kumar v. State of Karnataka3. v. The Petitioner contended that the essential ingredients of cheating under Section 318(4) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 are not satisfied. It was argued that there is no material to show that the Petitioner knowingly made any false representation with an intention to deceive at the inception of the transaction.It was further submitted that the complainant merely assumed that the Petitioner was associated with the bank based on introduction by a third party, and no identity card or official communication was produced by the Petitioner to substantiate such representation.It was also contended 2(2005) 1 SCC 122. 3(2024) SCC Online SC 268. Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 23-Apr-2026 12:43:01 Signature Not Verified Page 6 that the transactions were carried out through documented bank transfers over a prolonged period, which negates any allegation of fraudulent inducement. Reliance was placed on Vesa Holdings Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Kerala4 and Delhi Race Club (1940) Ltd. v. State of Uttar Pradesh5 to contend that breach of contract cannot be equated with cheating in the absence of dishonest intention at inception. vi. The Petitioner submitted that the documents relied upon by the prosecution, such as sale agreements and allotment letters, were not recovered from the possession of the Petitioner but were seized on production by third parties. It was contended that mere allegation of forgery, without recovery, forensic examination or linkage to the Petitioner, is insufficient to constitute the offence. vii. The Petitioner contended that the offence of criminal conspiracy under Section 61 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 is not made out, as the Petitioner is the sole accused and there is no material to establish any meeting of minds with another person. Reliance was placed on V.P. Shrivastava v. Indian Explosives Ltd.6 to buttress the point. viii. The Petitioner asserted that the complainant, being a corporate entity, voluntarily entered into multiple transactions over a considerable period and made payments through banking channels after its own internal verification.It was contended that the conduct of the complainant in allegedly transferring substantial amounts 4(2015) 8 SCC 293. 5(2024) 10 SCC 690. 6(2010) 10 SCC 361. Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 23-Apr-2026 12:43:01 Signature Not Verified Page 7 without independent verification is inconsistent with ordinary commercial prudence, thereby indicating that the transactions were part of a commercial arrangement rather than a case of deception. ix. The Petitioner submitted that the investigation has been conducted in a biased and selective manner with the sole objective of implicating the Petitioner, without examining the role and conduct of the complainant.It was further contended that there are inherent contradictions in the prosecution case, inasmuch as the Petitioner is alleged to have forged documents while simultaneously being shown as an attesting witness to the same documents, which renders the prosecution story implausible. x. The Petitioner further contended that the present criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide intent and has been initiated to exert pressure and settle civil disputes. It was argued that the inherent jurisdiction under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 ought to be exercised to prevent abuse of process and to secure the ends of justice, reliance being placed on Anand Kumar Mohatta v. State (NCT of Delhi)7. 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 present petition seeking quashing of FIR No. 17 dated 28.10.2025 is wholly misconceived and devoid of merit, as the FIR and materials collected during investigation clearly disclose the 7(2019) 11 SCC 706. Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 23-Apr-2026 12:43:01 Signature Not Verified Page 8 commission of cognizable offences under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. ii. It was contended that the Petitioner, upon being introduced by one Mahesh Singh, falsely represented himself to be an employee of the State Bank of India and induced M/s The World Ventures Limited to purchase distressed assets allegedly held by SBI at prices below the market value. Acting on such representations, the complainant company transferred a total amount of Rs. 14,01,83,039/- in multiple instalments towards purchase of six properties into a bank account described as <State Bank of India I.O. Ram Narayan Bal=. However, it was subsequently revealed that the said account was the personal account of the Petitioner. It was further submitted that the Petitioner used forged bank seals, fabricated documents, and forged signatures of a purported SBI official, namely HariharPatnaik, who does not exist. The charge sheet dated 22.01.2026 clearly establishes impersonation, forgery and inducement with dishonest intention from the very inception. It was thus contended that the FIR and charge sheet disclose a clear prima facie case and the test for quashing, as laid down in Pradeep Kumar Kesarwani v. State of Uttar Pradesh8, is not satisfied. iii. The Opposite Parties submitted that the charge sheet having already been filed, the appropriate remedy available to the Petitioner is to seek discharge before the competent court, rather than invoking the inherent jurisdiction for quashing at this stage. 82025 SCC Online SC 1947. Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 23-Apr-2026 12:43:01 Signature Not Verified Page 9 iv. The Opposite Parties contended that the reference to Section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, instead of the corresponding provision under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, is merely a procedural irregularity and a curable defect which does not vitiate the proceedings. v. It was submitted that, notwithstanding the use of the earlier format at the stage of registration of the FIR, the entire investigation has, in substance, been carried out under the new criminal law regime. The offences have been invoked under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, statements have been recorded in terms of the BNSS, documents have been seized in accordance with the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023, and the charge sheet has been filed under Section 193 of the BNSS, with further investigation kept open in accordance with law. vi. It was further contended that the reference to the earlier provision is attributable to a clerical or transitional error, owing to non-updation of the system, and the same cannot be construed to invalidate an otherwise lawful investigation. In the instant case, the charge sheet has already been filed and the investigation has been conducted under the applicable statutory regime. vii. The Opposite Parties submitted that the contention regarding lack of jurisdiction of the Economic Offences Wing is misconceived. Referring to the Government Resolution dated 17.02.2012, it was contended that EOW has jurisdiction to investigate cases involving Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 23-Apr-2026 12:43:01 Signature Not Verified Page 10 banking fraud, cheating, forgery and land/building frauds exceeding Rs. 20 lakhs. viii. It was argued that involvement of public money is not a sine qua non, and given the magnitude of fraud in the present case, the EOW has validly assumed jurisdiction. ix. The Opposite Parties contended that the allegations involve impersonation, forgery, and fraudulent inducement, resulting in wrongful gain to the Petitioner and wrongful loss to the complainant. x. It was submitted that the contention of the dispute being civil in nature is untenable, as the materials clearly indicate dishonest intention from the inception, and such issues cannot be adjudicated at the stage of quashing. xi. The Opposite Parties submitted that during investigation, various incriminating materials including sale agreements, allotment letters, sale certificates and related documents were seized. xii. It was further revealed that the Petitioner was earlier employed as a Sales Executive with SBI Cap Securities Ltd., Bhubaneswar, but was suspended on 22.12.2023 and terminated on 28.05.2024, and despite the same, falsely represented himself as associated with SBI. xiii. The Opposite Parties submitted that the Petitioner is involved in multiple cases of a similar nature, thereby disclosing a consistent pattern of fraudulent conduct. It was contended that the Petitioner has allegedly cheated one Mohd. Aslam to the tune of Rs. 1.13 crores and Alok Chandra Mohanty to the extent of Rs. 32.95 lakhs. Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 23-Apr-2026 12:43:01 Signature Not Verified Page 11 Reference was also made to Colliery P.S. Case No. 372 dated 29.06.2024 involving fraud of approximately Rs. 1.8 crores. Apart from the aforesaid, the Petitioner is stated to be implicated in other criminal cases registered at Bhadrak Town P.S., Baisinga P.S., where he has been shown as an absconder, and Mancheswar P.S., all involving allegations of a similar nature. On the basis of the aforesaid, it was contended that the Petitioner9s antecedents reflect habitual involvement in fraudulent activities. xiv. The Opposite Parties contended that the present petition is an abuse of the process of law, filed with the intent to stall investigation and avoid prosecution. It was submitted that the petition is devoid of merit and liable to be dismissed. IV. COURT9S REASONING AND ANALYSIS 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials available on record. 6. At the outset, it is to be noted that the scope of interference in exercise of inherent jurisdiction under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (corresponding to Section 482 Cr.P.C.) is well settled. The inherent power, though wide in amplitude, is to be exercised sparingly, with circumspection, and only in cases where such intervention is necessary to prevent abuse of the process of Court or to secure the ends of justice. 7. In this regard, in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal9, the Supreme Court elucidated: 91992 Supp (1) SCC 335. Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 23-Apr-2026 12:43:01 Signature Not Verified Page 12 <102. In the backdrop of the interpretation of the various relevant provisions of the Code under Chapter XIV and of the principles of law enunciated by this Court in a series of decisions relating to the exercise of the extraordinary power under Article 226 or the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code which we have extracted and reproduced above, we have given the following categories of cases by way of illustration wherein such power could be exercised either to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice, though it may not be possible to lay down any precise, clearly defined and sufficiently channelised and inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae and to give an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases wherein such power should be exercised. (1) Where the allegations made in the first information report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused. (2) Where the allegations in the first information report and other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Section 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code. (3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused. (4) Where, the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code. (5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 23-Apr-2026 12:43:01 Signature Not Verified Page 13 no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. (6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party. (7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge.= 8. In this context, it is also apposite to refer to the decision of the Supreme Court in Pradeep Kumar Kesarwani (supra), wherein the scope of interference at the stage of quashing has been further elucidated. It was observed: <20. The following steps should ordinarily determine the veracity of a prayer for quashing, raised by an accused by invoking the power vested in the High Court under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C.:4 (i) Step one, whether the material relied upon by the accused is sound, reasonable, and indubitable, i.e., the materials is of sterling and impeccable quality? (ii) Step two, whether the material relied upon by the accused, would rule out the assertions contained in the charges levelled against the accused, i.e., the material is sufficient to reject and overrule the factual assertions contained in the complaint, i.e., the material is such, as would persuade a reasonable person to dismiss and condemn the factual basis of the accusations as false. (iii) Step three, whether the material relied upon by the accused, has not been refuted by the prosecution/complainant; and/or the material is such, that it Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 23-Apr-2026 12:43:01 Signature Not Verified Page 14 cannot be justifiably refuted by the prosecution/complainant? (iv) Step four, whether proceeding with the trial would result in an abuse of process of the court, and would not serve the ends of justice? If the answer to all the steps is in the affirmative, judicial conscience of the High Court should persuade it to quash such criminal - proceedings, in exercise of power vested in it under Section 482 of the Cr. P.C. Such exercise of power, besides doing justice to the accused, would save precious court time, which would otherwise be wasted in holding such a trial (as well as, proceedings arising therefrom) specially when, it is clear that the same would not conclude in the conviction of the accused.= 9. Turning to the present case, the primary contention of the Petitioner is that the dispute is purely civil in nature arising out of commercial transactions and that the essential ingredients of the offences alleged are not made out. It is further contended that the FIR suffers from procedural infirmities and that the Economic Offences Wing lacks jurisdiction. 10. Per contra, the Opposite Parties contend that the allegations disclose a well-orchestrated scheme involving impersonation, forgery of signature and documents and inducement with intent to cheat, resulting in wrongful loss to the complainant, and that the investigation has culminated in filing of charge sheet. 11. Upon consideration of the FIR and the materials on record, this Court finds that the allegations against the Petitioner are not confined to a mere breach of contract or a civil dispute. The specific accusation is that the Petitioner falsely represented himself to be associated with the State Bank of India and, on such representation, induced the complainant company to part Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 23-Apr-2026 12:43:01 Signature Not Verified Page 15 withapproximately Rs. 14,01,83,039/-, which was transferred to an account subsequently found to be the personal account of the Petitioner. 12. At this stage, the Court is not required to evaluate the veracity of such allegations, however, such allegations cannot be said to be inherently improbable or lacking in the basic ingredients of the offences alleged. The allegations of impersonation and inducement through forged documents, if taken at their face value, prima facie indicate the presence of dishonest intention from the inception. Therefore, the matter cannot be relegated to a purely civil dispute at this stage. 13. As regards the contention relating to absence of preliminary enquiry, it is well settled that where the information discloses commission of a cognizable offence, registration of FIR is mandatory and a preliminary enquiry is not required in every case. In the present case, the allegations, on their face, disclose cognizable offences and, therefore, non-conduct of a preliminary enquiry does not vitiate the FIR. 14. The submission regarding registration of the FIR under Section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, instead of the corresponding provision under the new statutory regime, also does not persuade this Court to exercise its inherent jurisdiction. The materials on record indicate that the investigation has been conducted in accordance with the applicable provisions of law and the charge sheet has been filed accordingly.A mere error in reference to a provision or use of an earlier format cannot, by itself, invalidate the proceedings when the substance of the investigation is otherwise in accordance with law. Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 23-Apr-2026 12:43:01 Signature Not Verified Page 16 15. Further, the contention regarding lack of jurisdiction of the Economic Offences Wing is also without merit. Having regard to the nature and magnitude of the allegations involving substantial financial transactions and alleged acts of fraud, forgery and inducement, it cannot be said at this stage that the EOW lacked jurisdiction to register and investigate the case. 16. It is also relevant to note that the investigation has culminated in filing of charge sheet. At this stage, this Court is not expected to undertake a detailed appreciation of evidence or adjudicate upon disputed questions of fact. The defences sought to be raised by the Petitioner are matters to be considered by the trial court in accordance with law. 17. In view of the aforesaid discussion, this Court is unable to hold that the present case falls within the limited categories warranting interference under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. V. CONCLUSION: 18. Accordingly, the CRLMC, being devoid of merit, stands dismissed. 19. It is, however, clarified that the observations made herein are only for the purpose of disposal of the present petition and shall not influence the trial. 20. Interim order, if any, passed earlier stands vacated. (Dr. Sanjeeb K Panigrahi) Judge Orissa High Court, Cuttack, Dated the 31st March, 2026/ CUTTACK