p. 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK CRLMC No.4056 of 2025 Sangram Keshari Behera …. Petitioner(s) Mr. Milan Kanungo, Senior Advocate along with Mr. Yuvraj Parekh, Advocate -versus- State of Odisha and another …. Opposite Party(s) Mr. Partha Sarathi Nayak, AGA CORAM: JUSTICE SIBO SANKAR MISHRA Order No. ORDER 13.01.2026 02. 1. Heard. 2. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 14.08.2025 passed by the learned S.D.J.M., Paralakhemundi, Gajapati in 1.C.C. Case No.22 of 2022, whereby the learned trial Court has issued coercive process of NBW against him. 3. Earlier the petitioner had filed CRLMC No.2548 of 2023 seeking quashing of the cognizance order dated 12.04.2023 passed by the learned trial Court. This Court initially passed a stay order vide order dated 03.07.2025. The CRLMC was finally heard along with batch matters by this Court and the same was dismissed on 03.07.2025 vide a detailed judgment. 4. Mr. Kanungo, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the order/judgment of this Court dated p. 2 03.07.2025 dismissing the CRLMC, where the cognizance order was under challenge has been assailed before the Hon’ble Supreme Court, which is still pending. However, no notice has yet been issued by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the said S.L.P. He further submits that earlier the petitioner had approached this Court by filing ABLAPL No.11024 of 2025, which was also rejected. Mr. Kanungo, learned Senior Counsel further submits that the learned trial Court ought to have issued summon before resorting to issuance of coercive process. He has also relied upon certain judgments to substantiate his case. 5. Mr. Nayak, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State submits that it is the prerogative of the learned trial Court to choose the process to be issued against the accused persons, particularly in the case of present nature. 6. Taking into consideration the submissions made by both the parties, I am of the view that the order dated 14.08.2025 passed by the learned S.D.J.M., Paralakhemundi, Gajapati in 1.C.C. Case No.22 of 2022, whereby the NBW has been issued against the petitioner, shall not be given effect to for a period of six weeks, so that the petitioner in the meanwhile can surrender to the jurisdiction of the trial Court and explore the legal remedy including pressing p. 3 for grant of bail. No coercive action shall be taken against the petitioner for six weeks. It is expected that the petitioner shall explore all the legal remedies available to him within the said period. After expiry of six weeks, the concession granted by this Court shall not be available to him. 7. With this observation, the CRLMC is disposed of. (S.S. Mishra) Judge Swarna Designation: Senior Stenographer