Page 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK CRLMC No.5459 of 2025 (In the matter of an application under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita) Kartik Chandra Das & Ors. …. Petitioner (s) -versus- State of Odisha & Anr. …. Opposite Party (s) Advocates appeared in the case through Hybrid Mode: For Petitioner (s) : Mr. Millan Kumar Kunango, Sr. Adv. along with associates Mr. Biswabhusan Das, Adv Miss Chandana Tripathy, Adv. For Opposite Party (s) : Mr. Sonak Mishra, ASC Mr. Amitabh Pradhan, ASC Mr. Samresh Pattanaik, Adv. (for O.P.2) CORAM: DR. JUSTICE SANJEEB K PANIGRAHI DATE OF HEARING:-06.03.2026 DATE OF JUDGMENT:-13.03.2026 Dr. Sanjeeb K Panigrahi, J. 1. In filing this CRLMC, the Petitioners against whom the allegations of theft of bamboos from the backyard of the informant and giving threatening to her husband including the other members of her family, have prayed for quashing the impugned order dated 27.11.2025 passed by the learned Additional District & Sessions Judge, Kujang in Spl. G.R. Case No.563 of 2015 corresponding to Kujang P.S Case No.162 of 2015. Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 26-Mar-2026 18:12:23 Signature Not Verified Page 2 I. FACTUAL MATRIX OF THE CASE: 2. On 5th July, 2015 at about 7.00 A.M., it is alleged that the present Petitioners, along with certain other persons, forcibly entered into the backyard of the informant and removed bamboos and other articles kept therein. The prosecution case, as reflected in the First Information Report, further alleges that while the Petitioners were committing the said acts, when the informant resisted and objected to the removal of the materials. Upon such resistance, the accused persons abused the informant in filthy and obscene language and, in the course of such altercation, uttered caste- related remarks by referring to the name of her caste. It is further alleged that the accused persons assaulted the informant and threatened her with dire consequences. 3. On the basis of the aforesaid allegations, the informant lodged a written report before the local Police Station, pursuant to which Kujang P.S. Case No.162 of 2015 came to be registered. In the said First Information Report, the present Petitioners have been implicated for the alleged commission of offences punishable under Sections 448, 143, 294, 427, 323, 352, 379, 506 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, read with Sections 3(1)(x) and 3(1)(xi) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. Accordingly, the criminal law was thus set into motion against the Petitioners. II. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONERS: 4. Learned counsel for the Petitioners earnestly made the following submissions in support of his contentions, as borne out from his argument before this Court and the written note of submissions: Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 26-Mar-2026 18:12:23 Signature Not Verified Page 3 a. Learned counsel for the Petitioners submits that the criminal case in question has been instituted with an oblique motive and arises out of a dispute relating to encroachment over public property. It is contended that the husband of the informant has allegedly encroached upon public land, including a portion of land belonging to the village deity known as “Maa Kharakhai Temple” situated in Mouza Kujanga under District Jagatsinghpur. According to the Petitioners, such unauthorized encroachment by the husband of the informant has caused considerable inconvenience and resentment amongst the inhabitants of the locality, as the said land is traditionally used by the villagers and is associated with the religious sentiments of the local community. b. It is further submitted that due to the growing discontent in the village over the said encroachment, there was widespread protest and agitation amongst the villagers. In that backdrop, on 2nd July, 2015, a complaint was brought to the notice of the Tahasildar, Kujang as well as the Inspector-in-Charge of Kujang Police Station regarding the alleged illegal occupation of the public land by the husband of the informant. c. Learned counsel for the petitioner further contends that instead of addressing the grievances of the villagers, the informant and her husband, harbouring resentment against the Petitioners for raising the issue before the authorities, allegedly assaulted the Petitioners, which ultimately gave rise to the present dispute. It is thus submitted that the present criminal proceeding has been initiated as Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 26-Mar-2026 18:12:23 Signature Not Verified Page 4 a counterblast and with a view to harass the Petitioners. He further contends that on the earlier occasion, the Petitioners had approached this Court vide CRLMC No.1604 of 2016 which was disposed of vide order dated 13.01.2023 with a direction to the Petitioners to raise all the points raised in the aforesaid CRLMC before the learned trial court. On being permitted by the order dated 13.01.2023 the Petitioners filed a discharge petition which was dismissed vide order dated 27.11.2025. Thereafter, challenging the said order dated 27.11.2025 the Petitioners again preferred a criminal revision vide CRLREV No.1004 of 2025 before this Court which was disposed of vide order dated 08.12.2025 thereby granting liberty to the Petitioners to avail appropriate remedy. d. Learned counsel for the Petitioners further submits that the criminal proceeding in question has been maliciously instituted owing to prior animosity between the parties. It is contended that the Petitioners have been falsely implicated and has no nexus whatsoever with the offences alleged in the impugned FIR. Learned counsel emphatically asserts that the Petitioners have neither extended any threat to the husband of the informant nor did they commit any theft from her backyard, as alleged. According to him, the continuation of the proceeding would amount to an abuse of the process of Court and result in undue harassment to the Petitioners. On these premises, he prays that this Court may be pleased to allow the relief sought in the present CRLMC and quash the impugned proceeding in the interest of justice. In order to fortify his Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 26-Mar-2026 18:12:23 Signature Not Verified Page 5 submissions, learned counsel for the Petitioners has placed reliance on a catena of authoritative pronouncements of the Supreme Court delineating the contours of the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court as well as the essential ingredients required to constitute offences under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. In this regard, reliance has been placed upon the decisions in Prabhu Chawla v. State of Rajasthan1; B. Venkateswaran v. P. Bakthavatchalam2,; Gorige Pentaiah v. State of Andhra Pradesh3,Hitesh Verma v. State of Uttarakhand4,Ashrafi v. State of Uttar Pradesh5,and Karuppudayar v. State represented by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Lalgudi Trichy & Ors6. Drawing sustenance from the ratio laid down in the aforesaid judgments, learned counsel contends that the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court is intended to operate as a constitutional safeguard against misuse of the criminal process and may be invoked in appropriate cases to prevent abuse of the process of the Court and to secure the ends of justice. It is further submitted that the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in the aforementioned decisions, has consistently held that mere bald or omnibus allegations without sufficient factual ingredients necessary to constitute the offence especially those under the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act 1 (2016) 16 SCC 30 2 (2023) 11 SCC 182 3 (2008) 12 SCC 531 4 (2020) 10 SCC 710 5 (2018) 1 SCC 742 6 (2025 INSC 132), Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 26-Mar-2026 18:12:23 Signature Not Verified Page 6 which cannot justify the continuation of criminal prosecution. Especially, Karuppudayar(supra) has far-reaching implications for the interpretation of the SC-ST Act and the exercise of judicial powers under Section 482 CrPC. While it strengthens the protection of individuals from frivolous prosecutions, it also raises important questions about the application of the SC-ST Act in cases involving private settings. The Supreme Court has taken a different dimension in its approach, shifting the focus toward a more restrictive interpretation of the term "public view" and emphasizing procedural safeguards against misuse. The decision is poised to exert a considerable influence on the trajectory of future adjudication under the statute and is likely to rekindle a wider constitutional and jurisprudential discourse on the delicate balance between the imperative of eradicating caste-based atrocities and the equally compelling duty to safeguard individual liberties. By undertaking a careful and contextual examination of both the statutory framework and the related factual matrix, the Court has reaffirmed that penal provisions enacted to redress deep-rooted social injustices must be applied with doctrinal clarity and judicial restraint, so that their remedial purpose is preserved without permitting their conversion into instruments of mechanical or indiscriminate prosecution. In doing so, the Court has reaffirmed that the administration of criminal justice must remain anchored in fairness, proportionality, and fidelity to legislative intent, thereby preserving the dignity of the law and ensuring that the rights of all Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 26-Mar-2026 18:12:23 Signature Not Verified Page 7 parties within the justice delivery system are scrupulously protected. According to learned counsel, the jurisprudence emerging from the aforesaid authorities clearly establishes that where the dispute is essentially civil in nature, or where the allegations are manifestly attended with mala fide intent and instituted as a counterblast to an earlier dispute, the continuation of the criminal proceeding would amount to a misuse of the penal process. Placing reliance on the principles enunciated in the above decisions, it is therefore urged that the present prosecution, which is allegedly founded on exaggerated and legally unsustainable accusations, deserves to be interdicted at the threshold by exercising the inherent powers of this Court. III. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE OPPOSITE PARTIES: 5. On the contrary, learned Counsel for the Opposite Party No.1 made the following submissions: a. In opposition, learned counsel appearing for the State submits that pursuant to the registration of the F.I.R., a due investigation has been carried out by the investigating agency, which has ultimately culminated in the submission of a charge-sheet against the Petitioners. It is contended that the investigation has yielded prima facie materials disclosing the commission of the alleged offences, and the same have been duly placed before the learned Court below for consideration in accordance with law. Learned counsel further submits that at this preliminary stage of the proceedings, when the investigating agency has already completed the investigation and Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 26-Mar-2026 18:12:23 Signature Not Verified Page 8 found sufficient materials to proceed against the accused persons, there exists no compelling or exceptional circumstance warranting the invocation of the inherent jurisdiction of this Court for quashing of the criminal proceeding. It is therefore contended that the Petitioners must face the due process of trial, where the veracity and evidentiary value of the allegations can be appropriately tested in accordance with the settled principles of criminal jurisprudence. b. Learned counsel further submits that the veracity of the allegations levelled in the F.I.R., the defence plea of prior enmity, and the contention of false implication are all essentially matters of evidence which can only be appropriately examined upon a full-fledged appreciation of the materials brought on record during the course of trial. It is contended that such disputed questions of fact cannot be conclusively adjudicated at this preliminary stage in exercise of the inherent jurisdiction of this Court. According to her, any premature interference with the criminal proceeding would have the effect of stifling a legitimate prosecution and obstructing the due course of criminal justice. On such premises, learned counsel for the State earnestly prays for dismissal of the present CRLMC. c. Learned counsel appearing for the Opposite Party No.2 submits that the complainant, namely Opposite Party No.2, had lodged the written complaint which gave rise to Kujanga P.S. Case No.162 of 2015 after being subjected to manhandling, verbal abuse and physical assault at the hands of the present Petitioners and their associates. It is contended that the allegations contained in the Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 26-Mar-2026 18:12:23 Signature Not Verified Page 9 complaint clearly disclose the commission of cognizable offences and have rightly been set in motion through the criminal process. Learned counsel further submits that the trial in the said case has been progressing at a rather senile pace, largely attributable to the conduct of the present Petitioners themselves, who have been resorting to various procedural devices in order to delay the proceedings. In such circumstances, it is contended that the present petition seeking quashment of the criminal proceeding is devoid of merit and has been instituted only with a view to obstruct the course of justice. On these premises, learned counsel for the Opposite Party No.2 prays for dismissal of the present CRLMC. IV. THIS COURT’S REASONING AND ANALYSIS: 6. Having heard the parties and perused the material placed on record including the written notes of submissions by the parties, this Court proceeds to examine whether the present case warrants interference in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction. The jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is undoubtedly of a wide amplitude; nevertheless, it is equally well settled that such power is extraordinary in nature and is to be exercised with great caution, circumspection and judicial restraint. 7. The inherent jurisdiction is intended to operate as a safety valve in the criminal justice system, enabling the High Court to intervene only in those rare and exceptional situations where the continuation of a criminal proceeding would amount to a manifest abuse of the process of the Court or where interference becomes indispensable to secure the ends of justice. Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 26-Mar-2026 18:12:23 Signature Not Verified Page 10 8. The doctrinal parameters governing the exercise of this jurisdiction have been consistently articulated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in a long line of authoritative precedents. The guiding principle which emerges from these decisions is that while exercising powers under Section 482 CrPC, this Court does not ordinarily undertake an appreciation of evidence nor does it adjudicate upon disputed questions of fact. The Court is primarily concerned with examining whether the allegations contained in the complaint or the First Information Report, taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety, disclose the commission of the alleged offences. If the allegations, on a plain reading, disclose the essential ingredients of the offences alleged, the Court would ordinarily refrain from interfering at the threshold, leaving the matter to be adjudicated in the course of trial. 9. In the case at hand, the First Information Report contains specific allegations that the present Petitioners, along with certain other persons, forcibly entered into the backyard of the informant and removed bamboos and other materials stored therein. The FIR further alleges that when the informant resisted such acts, the accused persons abused her in obscene language and during the course of the altercation, uttered caste- related remarks by referring to the name of her caste. It is also alleged that the informant was physically assaulted and threatened with dire consequences. These allegations formed the basis for registration of Kujanga P.S. Case No.162 of 2015, pursuant to which an investigation was undertaken by the police. It is not in dispute that the investigation culminated in submission of a charge-sheet against the Petitioners after the investigating agency, upon collection and evaluation of materials Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 26-Mar-2026 18:12:23 Signature Not Verified Page 11 during investigation, found prima facie evidence disclosing the commission of the alleged offences. 10. The principal contention advanced on behalf of the Petitioners is that the criminal proceeding has been maliciously instituted owing to a dispute relating to alleged encroachment over public land and that the present prosecution is nothing but a counterblast to earlier complaints lodged against the husband of the informant before the local authorities. While the existence of prior animosity between the parties may provide a possible explanation for the genesis of the dispute, it is equally well settled that mere existence of civil disputes or prior hostility between the parties cannot, by itself, constitute a ground for quashing a criminal proceeding where the allegations in the complaint disclose the commission of cognizable offences. Questions as to whether the allegations are motivated by malice, whether the Petitioners have been falsely implicated, or whether the dispute is essentially civil in nature necessarily involve a detailed examination of facts and evidence, which lies beyond the permissible scope of scrutiny under Section 482 of the Code. 11. The inherent jurisdiction of the High Court is not intended to supplant the trial process nor is it a forum to convert proceedings under Section 482 CrPC into a forum for conducting a mini-trial. In order to undertake a meticulous evaluation of the evidentiary worth of the allegations at this stage would amount to trenching upon the jurisdiction of the trial court and would undermine the well-established procedural framework of criminal adjudication. The proper forum for testing the truthfulness of the Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 26-Mar-2026 18:12:23 Signature Not Verified Page 12 allegations and the credibility of the witnesses is the trial court, where the parties are afforded an opportunity to lead evidence and subject the same to the rigours of cross-examination. 12. Equally significant is the contention raised by learned counsel for the Petitioners with regard to the applicability of the provisions of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. The Petitioners contend that the allegations contained in the FIR do not satisfy the statutory ingredients necessary to constitute the offences alleged under the said enactment. It is undoubtedly true that the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in several decisions, has emphasized that the provisions of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act must not be invoked in a mechanical manner and that the essential ingredients of the offence must be clearly discernible from the allegations made in the complaint. The Court has repeatedly cautioned that vague or omnibus allegations, bereft of specific factual details , cannot justify the continuation of prosecution under the stringent provisions of the Act. 13. It is equally important that the Court, while examining a petition seeking quashing of criminal proceedings, must confine itself to the allegations as they appear in the complaint or the FIR and must not embark upon a detailed inquiry into their truthfulness. In the present case, the FIR specifically alleges that the informant was subjected to verbal abuse grounded in caste identity during the course of the altercation with the accused persons. Whether the alleged remarks were actually uttered, whether the incident occurred in a place within “public view”, and whether the circumstances surrounding the occurrence satisfy the Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 26-Mar-2026 18:12:23 Signature Not Verified Page 13 statutory requirements under the SC/ST Act are matters that can only be determined after a comprehensive evaluation of the evidence that may be adduced during trial. At this stage, when the allegations prima facie discloses the ingredients of the offences alleged, it would not be appropriate for this Court to record a conclusive finding on such issues. 14. It is also of considerable significance that the investigation conducted by the police has culminated in submission of a charge-sheet before the learned court below. The filing of a charge-sheet signifies that the investigating agency, upon an objective assessment of the materials collected during investigation, has found sufficient grounds to proceed against the accused persons. While the opinion of the investigating agency is not conclusive, it nevertheless indicates that the allegations made in the FIR are supported by prima facie materials gathered during the course of investigation. At this stage, when the prosecution has already been set in motion and the matter is poised to proceed to trial, any interference by this Court would amount to prematurely terminating a prosecution which cannot be said to be inherently absurd, improbable or legally untenable on the face of the record. 15. The jurisprudence governing the exercise of inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC is firmly based on the principle that criminal proceedings should not be scuttled at the threshold unless the Court is satisfied that the allegations are so patently absurd or inherently improbable that no prudent person could reasonably conclude that an offence has been committed. Where the allegations disclose the commission of cognizable offences and where the defence raised by the Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 26-Mar-2026 18:12:23 Signature Not Verified Page 14 accused involves disputed questions of fact requiring evidentiary adjudication, the proper course is to allow the prosecution to proceed so that the truth or otherwise of the allegations may be determined through the judicial process. 16. In the considered opinion of this Court, the contentions advanced on behalf of the Petitioners predominantly pertain to issues which lie within the realm of factual adjudication and evidentiary appreciation. Such matters are more appropriately to be examined by the learned trial court in the course of trial. The materials available on record, at this stage, this court does not disclose any circumstance so exceptional or extraordinary as to warrant the exercise of the inherent jurisdiction of this Court to interdict the criminal proceeding at its inception. V. CONCLUSION: 17. In the conclusion, this Court is of the view that the present case does not fall within the limited and well-recognized categories of cases where interference under Section 482 of the Code would be justified. The continuation of the criminal proceeding cannot be said to be an abuse of the process of the Court nor can it be said that interference at this stage is necessary to secure the ends of justice. The petition, therefore, does not merit quashing of the Criminal Proceedings. 18. Accordingly, the present CRLMC stands dismissed, leaving it open to the Petitioners to raise all permissible defences before the learned trial court, which shall consider the same in accordance with law and uninfluenced by any observations made in this order. Before parting, this Court directs the Ld., Trial Court to conclude the trial as expeditiously as possible. Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 26-Mar-2026 18:12:23 Page 15 19. Interim order, if any, passed earlier stands disposed of. (Dr. Sanjeeb K Panigrahi) Judge Orissa High Court, Cuttack, Dated the 13th March, 2026