Page 1 of 4. IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK CRLMC No.3639 of 2024 Sujata Behera ..... Petitioner Represented by Adv. – M/s. Satya Ranjan Pati, D.Pati, S. Swain -versus- State of Odisha and another ..... Opposite Parties Represented by Adv. – Mr. C.M. Singh, ASC CORAM: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR MOHAPATRA ORDER 15.12.2025 Order No. 03. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual /Physical Mode). 2. Heard the learned counsel for the Petitioner as well as learned counsel for the State. Perused the application as well as the prayer made therein. 3. By filing the present application under Section 528 of BNSS, 2023, the Petitioner-Complainant seeks to invoke the inherent power of this Court for quashing of order dated 13.03.2024 passed by the learned J.M.F.C.-II (Cog. Taking), Cuttack in 1CC No.1154 of 2018. 4. By virtue of the impugned order dated 13.03.2024, the trial court has dismissed the complaint case on default by the Complainant. Page 2 of 4. 5. Learned counsel for the Petitioner, at the outset, contended that the above noted complaint case was filed at the instance of the Petitioner-Complainant in the year 2018 alleging commission of an offence punishable under Section 138 of N.A. Act. He further contended that during the trial the Petitioner appeared before the trial court upon being represented by his lawyer. However, the order sheets reveals that 20.01.2024, none appeared for both sides and no steps were taken. Accordingly, the matter was posted to 13.03.2024 for hearing. Again on 13.03.2024, none appeared for both sides. Accordingly, complaint petition has been dismissed on default of the Complainant. Being aggrieved by such order, the Petitioner has approached this Court by filing the present application. 6. On perusal of the impugned order dated 13.03.2024, it appears that the trial court has specifically observed that when the case was taken up on 13.03.2024, none appeared for both sides. It has also been observed that since 13.03.2024, no steps have been taken by the learned counsel for the Complainant. Thereafter, several adjournments were granted. Finally, the trial court, vide order dated 13.03.2024, has been pleased to dismiss the complaint due to default of the Complainant. 7. Learned counsel for the Petitioner, referring to the judgment of the Karnataka High Court in Smt. R. Rajeshwari v. H.N. Jagadish, reported in 2002 DCR 24, stated before this Court that the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court has exercised its inherent power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. to restore a complaint case Page 3 of 4. which was dismissed for default, to secure the ends of justice. On such ground, learned counsel for the Petitioner contended that the order dated 13.03.2024 is identical to the order which was the subject matter of challenge in the above noted reported judgment, and this Court should exercise its inherent power to restore the present complaint case. 8. On a close scrutiny of the judgment rendered by the Karnataka High Court, this Court found that the same was delivered prior to the amendment of Section 372 of the Cr.P.C. Moreover, the Hon’ble Court has specifically observed that no second complaint at the instance of the private complainant alleging an offence under Section 138 of N.I. Act is permissible and in order to secure the ends of justice, the Hon’ble Court has restored the complaint by setting aside the order dismissing the complaint case due to default. 9. On a careful analysis of the legal position, this Court is of the view that the Complainant in the present case can very well be termed as victim as has been defined under Section 2(wa) of the Cr.P.C. Further, taking note of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Celestium Financial vs. Gnanasekaran Etc., reported in (2025) SCC Online SC 1320, this Court found that the effect of dismissal for default of a complaint case is acquittal of the accused. Since the victim-complainant can prefer an appeal under the proviso to Section 372 of Cr.P.C., as has been held in the case of Celestium Financial’s (supra), this Court is of the view that remedy is in the shape of appeal is Page 4 of 4. available to the Petitioner. Accordingly, this Court holds that exercise of power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. is not justified as an alternative and effective statutory remedy is available to the Petitioner in the shape of proviso to Section 372 of Cr.P.C. which was introduced in the year 2009. 10. In view of the aforesaid analysis, this Court is of the view that the remedy available to the Petitioner in the present case is to prefer an appeal under the proviso to Section 372 of the Cr.P.C. before appellate court instead of approaching this Court by filing an application under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. 11. Hence, the present CRLMC application is disposed of by granting liberty to the Petitioner to prefer an appeal before the appellate court within four weeks from today along with an application for condonation of delay, if any. In the event there is any delay, the appellate court shall consider the same liberally and pass necessary orders therein. 12. Certified copies of documents filed as annexures be returned to the Petitioner by substituting the same with the authenticated copies thereof. 13. With the aforesaid observation and direction, the application stands disposed of. ( A.K. Mohapatra) Judge Debasis