Page 1 of 3. IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK CRLMC No.3292 of 2024 Tapan Kumar Chhotaray ..... Petitioner Represented By Adv. - Kabiraj Pradhan -versus- 1) State Of Odisha ..... Opposite Parties 2) Bhabani Prasad Nanda Represented By Adv. – Mr. U.R. Jena, AGA CORAM: MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR MOHAPATRA ORDER 11.12.2025 Order No. 03. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual /Physical Mode). 2. Heard 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 of the present application under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C., the Petitioner seeks to invoke the inherent power of this Court to quash order dated 04.08.2023 passed by the learned NGN-cum-JMFC, Tangi in 1CC Case No.68 of 2019. The above noted 1CC No.68 of 2019 was registered at the instance of the Opposite Party No.2-complainant alleging commission of an offence punishable under Section 138 of the N.I. Act. Page 2 of 3. 4. Learned counsel for the Petitioner at this juncture contended that being aggrieved by order dated 04.08.2023 passed IN the abovenoted complaint case, whereby the complaint has been dismissed and the accused has been acquitted, the Petitioner has approached this Court. On perusal of order dated 04.08.2023, this Court found that on the day the matter was posted, the complainant was absent and no steps were taken on his behalf, similarly the accused was also absent and no steps were taken on his behalf. Consequently, the learned trial Court has taken into consideration the fact that the case is of the year 2019 and the same is lingering for recording of evidence on the complainant side and although the matter was adjourned on several occasions, no evidence was adduced on the side of the complainant. Finally, referring to the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of S. Rama Krishna Vs. S. Rami Reddy reported in AIR 2008 SC 2066 and in the case of LIoyds Finance Ltd. Vs. SKG Solvex Ltd. reported in 2002 Cr LJ 2764 (Bom) dismissed the complaint for non-appearance of the complainant and accordingly the accused persons has been acquitted of the charges under Section 256(1) of the Cr.P.C. 5. On a careful scrutiny of the impugned order dated 04.08.2023, this Court found that the complaint has been dismissed and the accused persons have been acquitted. Therefore, the aforesaid order is a final order and the same is appealable. However, the complainant-Petitioner has approached this Court challenging the aforesaid order by filing the present application Page 3 of 3. invoking the inherent power of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. Since a remedy in shape of an appeal is available to the Petitioner in view of the proviso to Section 372 of the Cr.P.C., as has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Celestium Financial vs. A. Gnanasekaran Etc. reported in (2025) SCC Online SC 1320, this Court is not inclined to entertain such application in exercise of its inherent power. Accordingly, while disposing of the present application, liberty is granted to the Petitioner to file an appeal in terms of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Celestium Financial’s case (supra) within four weeks’ from today. In such eventuality, the learned appellate court shall consider such appeal in accordance with law. In the event there is any delay, it is open to the Petitioner to file an application for condonation of such delay taking the ground that the matter was pending before this Court and, in such eventuality, the learned appellate court shall consider the same liberally. 6. With the aforesaid observation, the CRLMC application stands disposed of. ( A.K. Mohapatra) Judge Sisir Designation: Personal Assistant