Page 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK CRLMC No. 3580 of 2025 (In the matter of an application under Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973/ Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita). Debraj Meher …. Petitioner(s) -versus- State of Odisha & Anr. …. Opposite Party (s) Advocates appeared in the case through Hybrid Mode: For Petitioner(s) : Mr. H.N. Mohapatra, Adv. For Opposite Party (s) : Mr. Mr. Sonak Mishra, ASC Mr. Himanshu Sekhar Mishra, Adv. (for O.P. No.2). CORAM: DR. JUSTICE SANJEEB K PANIGRAHI DATE OF HEARING:-15.04.2026 DATE OF JUDGMENT:-22.05.2026 Dr. Sanjeeb K Panigrahi, J. 1. The Petitioner, by way of the present petition, has called in question the legality and propriety of the order dated 23.12.2024 passed by the learned S.D.J.M., Balangir, whereby cognizance was taken on 07.03.2025 and process was issued under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 in I.C.C. Case No. 66 of 2024, despite the fact that a complaint case instituted earlier by the Petitioner, being I.C.C. Case No. 25 of 2025, was already pending prior to the institution of the aforesaid complaint case. The said earlier complaint pertains to the Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 27-May-2026 15:45:01 Signature Not Verified Page 2 alleged commission of offences punishable under Sections 198, 199, 201, 126(2), 127(1), 129, 130, 318(4), 351 and 308 read with Section 3 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, as well as Section 29 of the Police Act. I. FACTUAL MATRIX OF THE CASE: 2. The brief facts of the case are as follows: (i) The present case manates from a Complaint Petition instituted by Opposite Party No. 2 against the Petitioner, which came to be registered as I.C.C. Case No. 66 of 2024 before the Court of the learned S.D.J.M., Balangir, alleging commission of the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. (ii) It is the case of the Petitioner that a long-standing animosity and deep-rooted dispute exists between the Petitioner and Opposite Party No. 2, and that on account of such strained relations, Opposite Party No. 2 has allegedly been making persistent attempts to harass and cause undue inconvenience to the Petitioner. (iii) It is further alleged by the Petitioner that Opposite Party No. 2, in active connivance with one Abani Sahoo, the then Inspector-in- Charge (IIC) of Balangir Town Police Station, misused such alleged administrative proximity to exert pressure upon the Petitioner. It is stated that, acting at the behest and on the instructions of Opposite Party No. 2, the said IIC contacted the Petitioner over his mobile phone on 23.09.2024 at about 9:30 P.M. and again on 24.09.2024 at about 10:49 A.M., informing him that a Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 27-May-2026 15:45:01 Signature Not Verified Page 3 criminal case had been registered against him and directing him to appear before the police station forthwith. (iv) It is further stated that, in compliance with the directions issued by the said I.I.C., the Petitioner appeared at Balangir Town Police Station on 24.09.2024 at about 11:15 A.M. Thereafter, the I.I.C. directed the Petitioner to proceed to the office of the Sub- Divisional Police Officer (S.D.P.O.), Balangir. It is alleged that although the S.D.P.O. was not present in the office at the relevant point of time, within a short while the said I.I.C., namely Abani Sahoo, arrived at the premises, called the Petitioner inside the chamber of the S.D.P.O., and locked the door from inside. The Petitioner allegedly found Opposite Party No. 2 and her husband already present inside the said chamber. (v) Thereafter, it is alleged that the said I.I.C. resorted to intimidating and coercive tactics against the Petitioner, thereby creating an atmosphere of fear, compulsion and undue pressure. It is further stated that, under such alleged duress and coercion, the Petitioner was compelled to sign upon a stamp paper and execute a written statement purportedly acknowledging that he had borrowed a sum of Rs.50,00,000/- from Opposite Party No. 2. (vi) It is further alleged that the said I.I.C. directed the Petitioner to arrange for his chequebook to be brought from his residence and to hand over two blank cheques to Opposite Party No. 2. It is stated that, being under an atmosphere of fear, intimidation and coercion allegedly created by the conduct of the police official, the Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 27-May-2026 15:45:01 Signature Not Verified Page 4 Petitioner contacted his wife over telephone, pursuant to which she brought the chequebook to the office of the S.D.P.O., Balangir, and handed over the same to the Petitioner at the said premises. (vii) It is further alleged that, under continuous pressure and mental coercion purportedly exerted by the said I.I.C., the Petitioner was compelled to fill up two cheques bearing Nos. 104201 and 104202 for an amount of Rs.25,00,000/- each and hand over the same to Opposite Party No. 2. It is further stated that, acting upon the joint instructions of the I.I.C., Opposite Party No. 2 and her husband, the Petitioner was forced to post-date the said cheques to 30.10.2024. According to the Petitioner, the said cheques were procured in a premeditated and coercive manner, notwithstanding the absence of any legally enforceable debt or subsisting liability. (viii) It is stated that immediately after the occurrence of the aforesaid incident, the Petitioner submitted a written report before the Balangir Town Police Station on 24.09.2024. It is further alleged that, owing to the inaction and failure of the local police authorities to register the complaint, the Petitioner was constrained to escalate the matter by submitting written representations before the Superintendent of Police, Balangir, and the Inspector General of Police, Sambalpur, on the very same day. (ix) It is stated that, having received no redressal from the police authorities despite approaching the competent authorities at different levels, the Petitioner instituted a private complaint case, Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 27-May-2026 15:45:01 Signature Not Verified Page 5 which came to be registered as I.C.C. Case No. 25 of 2024, before the Court of the learned S.D.J.M., Balangir, on 09.10.2024. Along with the said complaint, the Petitioner also filed an application seeking preservation and production of the CCTV footage of Balangir Town Police Station and the office of the S.D.P.O., Balangir, relating to the date 24.09.2024. (x) It is further stated that, in the aforesaid proceeding, the initial statement of the Petitioner was recorded and two supporting witnesses were examined in support of the allegations made in the complaint petition. It is stated that, upon conducting an enquiry under Section 225 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, the learned Magistrate, vide order dated 19.02.2025, observed that a prima facie case was made out against the accused persons; however, the Petitioner was directed to obtain the requisite statutory sanction from the competent authority before proceeding further against the then I.I.C. concerned. (xi) It is stated that, on 21.11.2024, the Petitioner received a legal notice purportedly issued on behalf of Opposite Party No. 2, wherein it was alleged that the Petitioner, being in urgent need of funds, had on 28.03.2022 proposed to sell his landed property situated at Larkipalli Mouza to Opposite Party No. 2 for a total sale consideration of Rs.70,00,000/-. It was further alleged therein that a sum of Rs.50,00,000/- had been paid in cash to the Petitioner on 30.03.2022 without any contemporaneous Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 27-May-2026 15:45:01 Signature Not Verified Page 6 documentation, and that a subsequent agreement on stamp paper was executed on 29.09.2024 acknowledging the said liability. The notice further alleged that the Petitioner had issued two cheques towards discharge of the aforesaid liability, which, upon presentation, were dishonoured on 06.11.2024 and 07.11.2024 respectively with the endorsement “Account Stopped by Drawer.” (xii) It is further stated that the Petitioner submitted a detailed reply to the aforesaid legal notice on 28.11.2024, wherein he categorically denied the existence of any legally enforceable debt or liability towards Opposite Party No. 2 and specifically narrated the alleged coercive incident purported to have taken place inside the chamber of the S.D.P.O., Balangir. (xiii) It is stated that, instead of returning the cheques alleged to have been obtained under coercion and duress, Opposite Party No. 2 proceeded to institute a criminal complaint on 23.12.2024, which came to be registered as I.C.C. Case No. 66 of 2024 before the Court of the learned S.D.J.M., Balangir. It is further alleged that, in the said proceeding, the learned S.D.J.M., Balangir, by order dated 23.12.2024, issued process and summons against the Petitioner even prior to passing a formal order taking cognizance of the alleged offence. (xiv) Subsequently, upon noticing the aforesaid procedural aspect, the learned Magistrate, vide order dated 07.03.2025, after considering the interplay of Section 142(1)(a) of the Negotiable Instruments Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 27-May-2026 15:45:01 Signature Not Verified Page 7 Act, 1881, Section 5 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, and Section 223(1) of the BNSS, 2023, formally took cognizance of the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, and re-issued summons against the Petitioner. Being aggrieved by the orders dated 23.12.2024 and 07.03.2025, the Petitioner has approached this Hon’ble Court by invoking its inherent jurisdiction under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the Petitioner has been constrained to approach this Court by filing the present CRLMC Application seeking appropriate relief in accordance with law. II. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER: 3. The learned counsel for the Petitioner respectfully and earnestly made the following submissions in support of his contentions: (i) The Petitioner submits that the initial order dated 23.12.2024 passed by the learned Court below in I.C.C. Case No. 66 of 2024 is ex facie contrary to law and procedurally unsustainable, inasmuch as the learned Magistrate proceeded to issue process and summons against the Petitioner without first recording any formal order taking cognizance of the alleged offence. It is contended that such issuance of process prior to taking cognizance is unknown to law and vitiates the entire proceeding at its threshold. (ii) The Petitioner contends that the two cheques forming the foundation of the prosecution, bearing Nos. 104201 and 104202, Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 27-May-2026 15:45:01 Signature Not Verified Page 8 were not issued voluntarily, but were allegedly obtained by way of criminal intimidation, coercion, and unlawful custodial duress exercised by the then IIC of Balangir Town Police Station, namely Abani Sahoo, in active conspiracy with Opposite Party No. 2 and her husband, within the locked chamber of the SDPO, Balangir. It is submitted that the said instruments were executed and handed over under an atmosphere of fear and compulsion, thereby vitiating the essential legal requirement of free and voluntary consent in the execution of negotiable instruments. (iii) The Petitioner further contends that there exists no underlying transaction, debt, or legally enforceable liability between the Petitioner and Opposite Party No. 2. It is submitted that the narrative sought to be projected regarding an alleged land sale transaction in respect of land situated at Larkipalli Mouza is a false and afterthought story, subsequently fabricated by Opposite Party No. 2 only to lend a semblance of legitimacy to the cheques which were allegedly obtained through coercion and extortion. (iv) It is submitted that the assertion made by Opposite Party No. 2 regarding an alleged cash payment of Rs. 50 lakhs towards an oral agreement for purchase of land is wholly untenable, vague, and inherently improbable. It is further contended that the alleged transaction is not supported by any material particulars such as Khata number, Plot number, area of land, or other essential identifying details, thereby rendering the said version commercially implausible and legally unsustainable. Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 27-May-2026 15:45:01 Signature Not Verified Page 9 (v) It is further submitted that high-value transactions of such magnitude, in ordinary course of commercial dealings, are expected to be conducted through verifiable banking channels such as RTGS, NEFT, or demand drafts, in accordance with established financial norms and statutory compliance, and not through unaccounted cash payments as alleged. (vi) It is respectfully submitted that the Petitioner had instituted the complaint case, i.e., I.C.C. Case No. 25 of 2024, on 09.10.2024, wherein the entire sequence of events relating to alleged police coercion, extortion, and forced execution of stamp paper on 24.09.2024 was specifically delineated, much prior to the institution of I.C.C. Case No. 66 of 2024 by Opposite Party No. 2. (vii) It is further submitted that in the said earlier proceeding, the learned Magistrate, upon examination of witnesses and conduct of enquiry, vide order dated 19.02.2025, observed that a prima facie case was made out, and directed the Petitioner to obtain requisite statutory sanction for prosecuting the then IIC, thereby implicitly acknowledging the existence of a prima facie case relating to the alleged acts of coercion and extortion involving the police official and other accused persons. (viii) It is argued that since the learned Magistrate had already, in the Petitioner’s prior complaint case, vide order dated 19.02.2025, found prima facie substance in the allegations of extortion, it was legally impermissible and wholly inconsistent for the same Court to subsequently, vide order dated 07.03.2025 in I.C.C. Case No. 66 Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 27-May-2026 15:45:01 Signature Not Verified Page 10 of 2024, take cognizance against the Petitioner on the basis of the very same cheques/instruments which are alleged to have been obtained under coercion. It is submitted that the two findings/approaches adopted by the learned Magistrate are mutually irreconcilable and stand in direct contradiction to each other, thereby rendering the latter order legally unsustainable. (ix) It is further contended that the complaint instituted under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 is nothing but a counterblast, maliciously initiated with an oblique motive to wreak vengeance upon the Petitioner and to shield the Opposite Party No. 2 from the consequences of the alleged acts of extortion forming the subject matter of I.C.C. Case No. 25 of 2024. It is submitted that the prosecution in I.C.C. Case No. 66 of 2024 is founded on the very same instruments which are asserted to have been procured under coercion, and therefore, in the event the Petitioner succeeds in establishing the allegations of extortion in the prior proceeding, the substratum of the present complaint would stand vitiated, rendering the prosecution unsustainable in law. (x) It was urged that the learned Court below failed to record any independent judicial satisfaction as to the existence of a prima facie case against the Petitioner. It is contended that the order dated 07.03.2025 is vitiated inasmuch as it merely engages in a theoretical discussion on the interplay between Section 142(1)(a) of the Negotiable Instruments Act, Section 5 of the BNSS, 2023, Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 27-May-2026 15:45:01 Signature Not Verified Page 11 and Section 223(1) of the BNSS, 2023, without undertaking any meaningful or critical appreciation of the factual matrix of the case. (xi) It is further submitted that the learned Court failed to consider the admitted enmity between the parties, the circumstances surrounding the execution of the cheques, and the pendency of the extortion-related proceedings, all of which were germane for arriving at a reasoned judicial determination. (xii) Therefore, it is submitted that the continuation of the criminal proceeding in I.C.C. Case No. 66 of 2024 amounts to a clear abuse of the process of law and the Court. It is contended that, in order to secure the ends of justice and prevent miscarriage thereof, the impugned orders dated 23.12.2024 and 07.03.2025 are liable to be quashed and set aside by this Hon’ble Court in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. III. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE OPPOSITE PARTIES: 4. Per contra, the learned counsel for the Opposite Parties earnestly made the submission that the present CRLMC is not maintainable before this Court and deserves to be rejected in limine. (i) The Opp. Party submits that while seeking to assail the impugned orders dated 23.12.2024 and 07.03.2025 directing issuance of process/summons, the Petitioner has, in substance, raised only a singular question of law. It is contended that the sole ground urged by the Petitioner is that the issuance of process Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 27-May-2026 15:45:01 Signature Not Verified Page 12 is vitiated for want of opportunity of hearing in terms of the first proviso to Section 223(1) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, and that no other substantial legal infirmity has been demonstrated in respect of the impugned orders. (ii) It is submitted that the brief facts giving rise to I.C.C. Case No. 66 of 2024 pertain to the dishonour of two cheques issued in favour of Opposite Party No. 2 by the Petitioner, which were returned unpaid with the endorsement “Payment Stopped by Drawer”. It is further submitted that the Petitioner has neither disputed his signatures nor the issuance of the said cheques in favour of Opposite Party No. 2, thereby, at this stage, not disputing the foundational factual substratum of the complaint. (iii) The Opposite Party No. 2 further contends that the Petitioner’s demand for a pre-cognizance hearing is wholly untenable in law as well as on facts and circumstances of the case. It is submitted that the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 is a special enactment designed to ensure expeditious adjudication of cases relating to dishonour of cheques and to maintain the credibility of commercial transactions. (iv) Accordingly, it is contended that general procedural requirements, including the provisions relating to pre-cognizance hearing under Section 223 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, cannot be imported so as to dilute or delay the special procedure contemplated under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 27-May-2026 15:45:01 Signature Not Verified Page 13 (v) The Opp. Party further submits that the affording an opportunity of hearing to the accused at the pre-cognizance stage or at the stage of issuance of process would defeat and run counter to the very object, purpose, and scheme of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. It is submitted that the exclusion of a pre-cognizance hearing is consciously designed to obviate procedural delays and ensure expeditious commencement of proceedings in cheque dishonour cases. (vi) It is further contended that the rights and contentions of the accused remain fully protected in law and can be effectively raised and adjudicated during the course of trial, and therefore, no prejudice is caused by denial of a hearing at the initial stage of issuance of process. (vii) The Opposite Party No. 2 placed reliance upon a recent judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Sanjabij Tari v. Kishore S. Borcar & Anr,1 wherein, it was held that the conducted a detailed analysis of a large body of case law and categorically ruled that an accused does not possess a legal right to be heard at the pre- cognizance or process stage under these provisions. (viii) The Opposite Party No. 2, therefore, submits that the present petition filed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 is wholly untenable in law and deserves to be dismissed in limine. It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to dismiss the 1 (2025) OCR (SC) 874 Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 27-May-2026 15:45:01 Signature Not Verified Page 14 petition and further direct the learned Trial Court to proceed expeditiously with the trial in accordance with law. IV. COURT’S REASONING AND ANALYSIS: 5. Heard Learned Counsel for parties and perused the documents placed before this Court. 6. At the outset, it is to be noted that the scope of interference in exercise of inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is well settled. 7. It is further a well-settled principle of law that while exercising its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the High Court ought not to embark upon a meticulous enquiry into the reliability, admissibility, or sufficiency of the evidence collected during investigation. The scope of interference at such stage is inherently limited and is required to be exercised sparingly, with great caution, and only in exceptional circumstances where continuation of the criminal proceeding would amount to an abuse of the process of Court or where no offence is disclosed on the face of the record. 8. Moreover, it is a well settled principle of law that for an offence under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 to be constituted, the cheque in question must have been issued in discharge, in whole or in part, of a "legally enforceable debt or other liability." 9. The Hon’ble Supreme Cour in the case of Jugesh Sehgal v. Shamsher Singh Gogi2has explained the ingredients of Section 138 of NI Act offence as follows: 2 (2009) 14 SCC 683 Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 27-May-2026 15:45:01 Signature Not Verified Page 15 “13. It is manifest that to constitute an offence under Section 138 of the Act; the following ingredients are required to be fulfilled: (i) a person must have drawn a cheque on an account maintained by him in a bank for payment of a certain amount of money to another person from out of that account; (ii) (ii) the cheque should have been issued for the discharge, in whole or in part, of any debt or other liability; (iii) that cheque has been presented to the bank within a period of six months from the date on which it is drawn or within the period of its validity whichever is earlier; (iv) that cheque is returned by the bank unpaid, either because of the amount of money standing to the credit of the account is insufficient to honour the cheque or that it exceeds the amount arranged to be paid from that account by an agreement made with the bank; (v) the payee or the holder in due course of the cheque makes a demand for the payment of the said amount of money by giving a notice in writing, to the drawer of the cheque, within 15 days of the receipt of information by him from the bank regarding the return of the cheque as unpaid; (vi) the drawer of such cheque fails to make payment of the said amount of money to the payee or the holder in due course of the cheque within 15 days of the receipt of the said notice. Being cumulative, it is only when all the aforementioned ingredients are satisfied that the person who had drawn the cheque can be deemed to have committed an offence under Section 138 of the Act.” 10. The Apex court in the case of Bir Singh Vs Mukesh Kumar3 has categorically held that: “40. Even a blank cheque leaf, voluntarily signed and handed over by the accused, which is towards some payment, would attract presumption under Section 139 of the Negotiable 3 (2019)4 SCC 197 Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 27-May-2026 15:45:01 Signature Not Verified Page 16 Instruments Act, in the absence of any cogent evidence to show that the cheque was not issued in discharge of a debt.” 11. Herein the negotiable instrument is allegedly extracted under coercion, duress, or undue influence particularly within the intimidating confines of a police station the presumption of a legally enforceable debt is inherently vitiated. Further the coordinate Court having already found prima facie substance in the Petitioner’s allegations regarding the forcible extraction of the very same cheques by the police official inside a police station, allowing the prosecution under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 to proceed would amount to weaponizing the judicial process. The statutory presumptions under the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 cannot be mechanically applied to legitimize instruments procured through alleged custodial intimidation. 12. In the present case, the Petitioner has approached this Hon’ble Court seeking quashing of the criminal proceeding and has challenged the order dated 23.12.2024 passed by the learned S.D.J.M., Balangir. 13. The Court also deems it appropriate to refer to the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of in Kapil Agarwal v. Sanjay Sharma & Ors,4, wherein it has been held that: “The inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and/or under Article 226 of the Constitution is designed to achieve the salutary purpose that criminal proceedings ought not to be permitted to degenerate into a weapon of harassment. When the Court is satisfied that criminal proceedings amount to an abuse of the process of law or that it amounts to bringing 4 AIR 2021 SC 1241 Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 27-May-2026 15:45:01 Signature Not Verified Page 17 pressure upon the accused, in the exercise of inherent powers, such proceedings can be quashed ” 14. In the case at hand, the institution of I.C.C. Case No. 66 of 2024 appears to be a clear counterblast to the Petitioner's prior complaint of extortion in I.C.C. Case No. 25 of 2024. The fact that a coordinate Court has already found a prima facie case regarding the forcible extraction of the very same cheques inside a police station heavily underscores the malicious nature of the present prosecution. 15. This Court is of the view that the two cheques forming the foundation of the prosecution were not issued voluntarily, but were allegedly obtained by way of criminal intimidation, coercion, and unlawful custodial duress, said to have been exercised by the Inspector-in- Charge. 16. Thereafter, it is alleged that within the locked chamber of the S.D.P.O., Balangir, the said instruments were executed and handed over under an atmosphere of fear, intimidation, and compulsion. It is submitted that such circumstances, if established, would vitiate the essential legal requirement of free and voluntary consent in the execution of negotiable instruments under the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. 17. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, and upon a careful and due appreciation of the materials available on record, this Court is of the considered opinion that the present Petition deserves to be allowed. Accordingly, the Petition stands allowed in the interest of justice. Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 27-May-2026 15:45:01 Signature Not Verified Page 18 V. CONCLUSION: 18. In view of the foregoing analysis, and upon an anxious, careful, and comprehensive consideration of the material facts, records, and circumstances attendant to the present case, this Court is of the considered opinion that the allegations levelled against the Petitioner, even if taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety, do not prima facie constitute the offence alleged. 19. Accordingly, the CRLMC stands allowed. 20. Interim order, if any, passed earlier stands vacated. (Dr. Sanjeeb K Panigrahi) Judge Orissa High Court, Cuttack, Dated 22nd May, 2026