Page 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK CRLMC No.2756 of 2025 (In the matter of an application under Section 438 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita) Brundaban Dalabehera …. Petitioner (s) -versus- Sai Harmony Pvt. Ltd., Bhubaneswar … . Opposite Party (s) Advocates appeared in the case through Hybrid Mode: For Petitioner (s) : M/s. Abhishek Dash, Adv. M/s. A. Mishra, Adv. For Opposite Party (s) : M/s. Chittaranjan Bairisal, M.M. Pattnaik, L.M. Mohanty, Adv. CORAM: DR. JUSTICE SANJEEB K PANIGRAHI DATE OF HEARING:-20.03.2026 DATE OF JUDGMENT:-15.05.2026 Dr. Sanjeeb K Panigrahi, J. 1. In filing this CRLMC, the Petitioner being the erstwhile director of the Opposite Party/Company, has prayed for quashing the summon dated 09.09.2024 issued by the learned S.D.J.M, Bhubaneswar against him for the commission of offences under Sections 486, 465, 467, 468 & 34 of the I.P.C. I. FACTUAL MATRIX OF THE CASE: 2. The Petitioner was the erstwhile director of the Opposite Party/ company. The said company was incorporated in the year 2021 and at that point of time, there were four Directors in the said company. Each Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 26-May-2026 16:09:47 Signature Not Verified Page 2 of the Directors had a share of 25% capital No.5000. In the Board of Directors meeting held on 25.09.2023 it was resolved that the Petitioner will transfer 20% share (Share Capital No.40000) out of his 25% share (Share Capital No.50000) to Opposite Party/Company and thereafter, the Petitioner will consequently resign from the Board of Directors on receiving a sum of Rs.1,30,00,000/- on or before the end of 1st week of October, 2023. It was also agreed that the Opposite Party will compensate the Petitioner the above amount of Rs.1,30,00,000/- including the individual investments with profit by borrowing funds or raising funds on his own individual capacity and not by the company in any manner. 3. Pursuant to the said resolution dated 25.09.2023 made in the meeting held by the Board of Director’s, the Opposite Party gave a sum of Rs.1,30,00,000/- in form of both cash by arranging from different sources and cheques from his own arrangement i.e. a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- vide Cheque No.000730 dated 09.10.2023 and a sum of Rs.40,00,000/- vide Cheque No.000729 dated 09.10.2023, to the Petitioner. Further, as per the request of the Petitioner, the Opposite Party being the Managing Director of the Company in question gave a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- vide Cheque No.798886 dated 09.10.2023 of the IDBI Bank and a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- vide Cheque No.392537 dated 11.10.2023 of the S.B.I to the Petitioner through his company Pabitra Royal Regency (P) Ltd. After getting full and final amount the Petitioner gave his resignation on 09.10.2023 from the position of the Director of the Company, whereby in the said resignation letter dated Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 26-May-2026 16:09:47 Signature Not Verified Page 3 09.10.2023 the Petitioner had also asked for arrangement of the forms required to be filed before the Registrar of the Companies, Odisha for giving effect to his resignation. The Petitioner further transferred 20% (Share Capital No.40000) of his share to the Opposite Party and signed the share Certificate forms (Form SH-1) and Security Transfer Form (Form No.SH-4) for such share transfer. Then in the Board of Director’s meeting held on 10.10.2023 the resignation of the Petitioner from the post of Director of the company was accepted. In the said Board meeting it was resolved to transfer 40,000 numbers of equity shares of Petitioner to the Opposite Party. It was also resolved that the Opposite Party and the other two Directors will operate all the bank accounts and all three Escrow accounts of the complainant company operating in the ICICI Bank, Bhuma Nagar Branch, Bhubaneswar. 4. Upon such resignation the name of the Petitioner was also deleted from the Board of the Directors of the Company in question which was also updated in the Government Companies Board website and the same was reflected in the website of the Ministry of Corporate Affairs on 12.10.2023 which was later intimated to the Bank. Accordingly, on 16.10.2023 the name of the Petitioner was removed from the signatory of the company. The Petitioner’s resignation was also intimated to the Chairperson of the Odisha Real Estate Regulatory Authority (ORERA) vide its letter bearing No.SHPL/65/2023 dated 28.11.2023. 5. After selling of 20% of the share of the Petitioner, the other Directors were holding a share of 25% each and the Opposite Party who was the Managing Director was holding a share of 45% as on 23.01.2024. The Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 26-May-2026 16:09:47 Signature Not Verified Page 4 Petitioner was also holding a share of remaining 5%. Thereafter, the complainant-Company continued its business after resignation and deletion of the name of the Petitioner as a signatory of the Bank Accounts of the Company. But suddenly, on 22.04.2024 at about 12.53 P.M. the Managing Director of the Complainant company received a call from the Branch Manager, ICICI Bank regarding issuance of a high value cheque bearing No.000667 dated 15.04.2024 worth Rs.75,00,000/- in favour of the present Petitioner and he has deposited the amount in the Company’s current account bearing No.429805000552 for clearance of that cheque, for which the Managing Director of the company denied for issuance of the cheque which was issued in favour of the Petitioner. He gave an online instruction on the ICICI Portal to stop the payment of the said cheque with a reason that ‘cheque is lost’. According to the Managing Director of the complainant-company, they have never issued any cheque bearing such number on that date on its current account in favour of the Petitioner. Moreover, the cheque book containing the cheque no.000667 was already used during October, 2022 and during that period the cheque book was in the custody of the Petitioner who was the then Director and Authorized Signatory of the bank Account of the complainant company. Even now, despite not being the Director, he has issued that cheque and deposited in the bank account, even though since 10.10.2023, he is no more as the Director of the complaint-company which indicates that the Petitioner while being the Director had retained the cheque bearing No.000667 with him Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 26-May-2026 16:09:47 Signature Not Verified Page 5 illegally without any authority or knowledge of the Managing Director or other Directors and thereby, has committed fraud. 6. Thereafter, though the Managing Director tried to get the details of the cheque issued by making necessary communication to the Branch Manager of the ICICI Bank, the Branch Manager intentionally did not respond to the same rather tried to support the Petitioner despite being aware of the fact that the Petitioner is no more acting as Authorized Signatory of the Company’s Bank account. Based on the above facts and circumstances, the Petitioner on 19.05.2024 through his Advocate gave a demand notice to the complainant-company for making payment of a sum of Rs.75,00,000/-, to which the complainant Company vide communication dated 04.06.2024 denied to have issued any such cheque bearing No.000667 dated 15.04.2024 against any outstanding or debt. 7. It is pertinent to mention here that after sending of the demand notice the Petitioner on 03.07.2024 filed a complaint case vide 1CC Case No.5401 of 2024 before the Court of learned JMFC-II, Bhubaneswar against the Managing Director of the complainant company for the commission of offences under Sections 403, 406, 409, 420, 421, 426 and 502 of the I.P.C. 8. Soon after receipt of the notice in the above noted complainant case at the instance of the Petitioner, the complainant-company on 06.08.2024 filed a counter complaint case bearing 1CC No.6144 of 2024 against the present Petitioner before the Court of learned S.D.J.M, Bhubaneswar for the commission of offences under Sections 486, 465, 467, 468 & 34 of Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 26-May-2026 16:09:47 Signature Not Verified Page 6 the I.P.C. Upon filing of the said 1CC Case bearing No.6144 of 2024 the learned Trial Court on 09.08.2024 took cognizance of the alleged offences under Sections 406, 465, 467, 468 & 34 of the IPC against the present Petitioner. On 09.09.2024, summon in the said 1CC Case was issued to the Petitioner. Hence, this CRLMC. II. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER: 9. Learned counsel for the Petitioner earnestly made the following submissions in support of his contentions, as borne out from the Written Note of Submissions: i. Learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that since the present case relates to the business transaction, charging the Petitioner for the commission of offences under Section 486, 465, 467, 468 & 34 of the IPC is not sustainable in law. The liability under Sections 486, 465, 467, 468 & 34 of the IPC cannot be attracted. The complainant in the present case has not been able to establish a legally enforceable debt owed by the Petitioner. Thus, it is stated that the case involves a business rivalries whereby case and counter case has been made out. ii. There is also no prima facie case establishing a transaction under which there is a legally recoverable debt payable to the Opposite Party-complainant by the Petitioner and as to whether the cheques in question relating to which the complaint case has been filed is issued towards discharge of such legally recoverable debt is untenable. Moreover, without prejudice it is staged for sake of argument that when the dispute between the parties is ordinarily Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 26-May-2026 16:09:47 Signature Not Verified Page 7 a civil dispute, can at best constitute breach of contract on the part of the Petitioner. iii. In view of the foregoing submissions advanced no prima facie case is made out on the basis of a complaint averments statements and material relied on in the 1CC Case rather the same in all certain terms establishes the factum of lack of any debt due for discharge in favour of the Opposite Party- complainant. iv. A cursory reading of the complaint averments and documents relied thereon, it irresistibly go to show that the Opposite Party have failed to lay proof or aver to the extent that the entire consideration amount was paid and that the debt stood discharged. In absence of such, the presumption invariably is that the issued cheque presented and dishonoured was towards discharge of a legally enforceable and existing debt/liability. Therefore, no case of forgery or cheating can be made out prima facie. Therefore, the instant case falls within the illustrative categories enunciated by the Apex Court in the case of State of Haryana Vrs. Bhajanlal 1. He also relies on another decision of the Apex Court in the case of Eicher Tractor Ltd. Vrs. Harihar Singh 2. v. When there is an admitted fact that there is a legally recoverable debt payable to the Petitioner by the Opposite Party against the 1 1992 Supp.(1)SCC 335 2 (2008) 16 SCC 763 Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 26-May-2026 16:09:47 Signature Not Verified Page 8 share purchases, the cheques issued cannot be presumed to be forged. Such defence taken is only to counter the proceeding under Section 138 N.I Act. He, accordingly, prays for allowing the prayer made in this CRLCM. III. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE OPPOSITE PARTIES: 10. On the contrary, learned Counsel for the Opposite Party Nos.2 to 4 made the following submissions: 11. In opposition, learned counsel for the sole Opposite Party submits that there is fraudulent presentation of cheque, dishonest intention at the inception, fabrication and misuse of financial instrument, failure to respond to the show cause notice by the Petitioner make out a strong case against him. These allegations clearly attract ingredients of criminal breach of trust (Section 406 of IPC), forgery (Sections 465, 467 of the IPC), Forgery for purpose of cheating (Section 468 of the IPC). At this juncture, there is no requirement to determine whether conviction will ultimately result. The test is only; whether the complainant discloses commission of a cognizable offence or not. 12. The learned SDJM after due inquiry as per the provision under Sections 200 and 202 of the Cr.P.C has issued the summons to the Petitioner. 13. He further contends that the complainant discloses cognizable offence. Allegations are not absurd or inherently improbable. Pendency of a proceeding under the N.I. Act is not a bar in continuation of a civil proceeding. Proceedings under Section 138 of the N.I. Act do not make any bar for the prosecution for independent Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 26-May-2026 16:09:47 Signature Not Verified Page 9 offences arising out of same transaction, if distinct ingredients are made out. The offences alleged in 1CC No.6144 of 2024 are distinct and independent of Section 138 of the N.I. Act proceeding i.e. 1CC No.5401 of 2024. 14. The cause of action for 1CC No.6144 of 2024 arose on 22.04.2024 when the cheque was fraudulently presented. Whereas, the cause of action for the complaint vide 1CC No.5401 of 2024 arose on 07.06.2024. Hence, the Petitioner cannot use the provision under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C as a shield to stifle legitimate prosecution. There is requirement of adducing of evidence to prove the allegation made by the Petitioner. The Apex Court in the case of the Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. Vrs. Stae of Maharashtra 3 has categorically held that the High Court should not conduct a mini-trial during exercise of power under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. He also relies on the decision of the Apex Court in the case of State of Haryana Vrs. Bhajan Lal 4 . He, accordingly, prays for dismissal of this CRLMC. IV. THIS COURT’S REASONING AND ANALYSIS: 15. Heard Learned Counsel for parties and perused the documents placed before this Court. 16. The present case deals with certain transactions during the course of the business between the parties which has led to filing of two complaint cases by both the parties against each other. This Court finds no reason to use its exclusive inherent power under Section 482 of 3 SCC 2021(19)401 4 SCC 1992 Supp.(1)335 Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 26-May-2026 16:09:47 Signature Not Verified Page 10 Cr.P.C. for forming any grounds to interfere with the impugned summoning order at such a preliminary stage of the criminal matter. 17. The parties should also be given equal opportunities to present their evidences before the Learned Trial Courts to ensure a fair trial, complete investigation and final determination of question of fact in this matter. 18. In the case of Rathish Babu Unnikrishnan v. State (NCT of Delhi)5, the Hon’ble Apex Court has rightly pointed out that just based on prima facie impression a criminal element cannot be ruled out nor can there be any quashing before evaluating the evidences in detail by the Learned Trial Court. This is held as follows, “14. Bearing in mind the principles for exercise of jurisdiction in a proceeding for quashing, let us now turn to the materials in this case. On careful reading of the complaint and the order passed by the Magistrate, what is discernible is that a possible view is taken that the cheques drawn were, in discharge of a debt for purchase of shares. In any case, when there is legal presumption, it would not be judicious for the quashing Court to carry out a detailed enquiry on the facts alleged, without first permitting the trial court to evaluate the evidence of the parties. The quashing Court should not take upon itself, the burden of separating the wheat from the chaff where facts are contested. To say it differently, the quashing proceedings must not become an expedition into the merits of factual dispute, so as to conclusively vindicate either the complainant or the defence. 18. The consequences of scuttling the criminal process at a pre-trial stage can be grave and irreparable. Quashing proceedings at preliminary stages will result in finality 5 (2022) 20 SCC 661 Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 26-May-2026 16:09:47 Signature Not Verified Page 11 without the parties having had an opportunity to adduce evidence and the consequence then is that the proper forum i.e. the trial court is ousted from weighing the material evidence. If this is allowed, the accused may be given an unmerited advantage in the criminal process. Also because of the legal presumption, when the cheque and the signature are not disputed by the appellant, the balance of convenience at this stage is in favour of the complainant/prosecution, as the accused will have due opportunity to adduce defence evidence during the trial, to rebut the presumption. 19. Situated thus, to non-suit the complainant, at the stage of the summoning order, when the factual controversy is yet to be canvassed and considered by the trial court will not in our opinion be judicious. Based upon a prima facie impression, an element of criminality cannot entirely be ruled out here subject to the determination by the trial court. Therefore, when the proceedings are at a nascent stage, scuttling of the criminal process is not merited.” V. CONCLUSION: 19. In view of the foregoing analysis and upon a meticulous examination of the circumstances of the case, this Court finds no reason to quash the summon order dated 09.09.2024 by the Learned S.D.J.M. Bhubaneswar and the parties are directed to comply with the same. 20. Accordingly, the CRLMC stands dismissed. 21. Interim orders, if any, passed earlier stands vacated. (Dr.Sanjeeb K Panigrahi) Judge Orissa High Court, Cuttack, Dated the 15th May, 2026/-