Page 1 of 4. IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK CRLMC No.5385 of 2025 Maheswar Sethy @ Sethi ..... Petitioner Represented by Adv. - Samapika Mishra -versus- State Of Odisha ..... Opposite Party Represented by Adv. – Mr. U.R.Jena, A.G.A. CRLMC No.1345 of 2024 Maheswar Sethy @ Sethi ..... Petitioner Represented by Adv. - Asish Mishra -versus- State Of Odisha & Anr. ..... Opposite Parties Represented by Adv. – Mr. U.R.Jena, A.G.A. CORAM: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR MOHAPATRA ORDER 22.12.2025 Order No. 02. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual /Physical Mode). 2. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner as well as the learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner in CRLMC No.1345 of 2024. Perused all the applications that have been listed today along with the present CRLMC application. Page 2 of 4. 3. Being aggrieved by order dated 05.12.2025 passed in S.T. Case No.125 of 2023 which corresponds to G.R. Case No.783 of 2006 arising out of Telkoi P.S. Case No.66 dated 16.09.2006, the Petitioner has approached this Court by filing the present application under Section 528 of the B.N.S.S. which corresponds to Section 482 Cr.P.C. with a prayer to quash order dated 05.12.2025. 4. Learned counsel for the Petitioner in the present case at the outset contended that vide order dated 05.12.2025, the learned trial court has directed the Petitioner to furnish the copy of order dated 04.02.2025 passed by this Court in CRLMC No.1345 of 2024. Taking into consideration the aforesaid order this Court has called for the records in CRLMC No.1345 of 2024. On perusal of the order sheet in CRLMC No.1345 of 2024, it is observed that there is no such order dated 04.02.2025. The last order was passed on 08.01.2025 by a coordinate bench of this Court with a direction to list this matter on 04.02.2025. However, it appears that the matter could not be listed on 04.02.2025 as there is no order in the order sheet bearing that date. On perusal of the order of the previous date, it appears that there is no order staying the further pending proceeding before the learned trial court. Thus, it is very clear that there is no order directing stay of further proceeding in the pending case. 5. Moreover, on perusal of the order dated 24.11.2022 passed in CRLMC No.1288 of 2022, a coordinate bench of this Court has disposed of the said application with a direction to the learned J.M.F.C., Telkoi to commit the G.R. Case No.783 of 2006 to the Sessions Court as soon as possible and in the event of such commitment, the learned Session Court shall do well to expedite the trial and to complete the same, preferably within a period of six Page 3 of 4. months from the date of receiving of the copy of the said order. 6. After hearing learned counsel appearing for all the parties and on a careful examination of the present case record as well as the connected record, this Court observes that although the F.I.R. is of the year 2006, the trial is pending even after expiry of more than one and half decades. Further, order dated 24.11.2022 arising out of the very same P.S. case and G.R. Case, which is the subject matter of dispute in CRLMC No.1288 of 2022, reveals that the coordinate bench has directed to conclude the trial preferably within a period of six months. However, the trial is still lingering. In view of the aforesaid direction of the coordinate bench, this Court deems it proper to dispose of the present application by directing the learned trial court to expedite the trial and make every endeavour to conclude the same within a period of six months from the date of communication of a copy of today’s order. Further, the parties are directed to cooperate with the learned trial court for an early conclusion of trial. CRLMC No.1345 of 2024 7. On perusal of the CRLMC No.1345 of 2024, it appears that the application has been filed under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. with a prayer to quash order dated 02.04.2024 passed in S.T. Case No.125 of 2023. On perusal of the impugned order, it appears that the discharge petition of the Petitioner has been rejected by the learned trial court. 8. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner as well as the learned counsel appearing for the State and careful examining the impugned order dated 02.04.2024, thereby rejecting the application for Page 4 of 4. discharge filed by the Petitioner. On a careful scrutiny of the aforesaid order this Court finds no ground to interfere. Moreover, taking into consideration the fact that the case is of the year 2006, this Court is of the view that the present application has been filed only with the intention to prolong the trial. Accordingly, the CRLMC No.1345 of 2024 is disposed of by granting liberty to the Petitioner to raise all the grounds during trial. 9. With the aforesaid observations and directions the CRLMC application stands disposed of. ( A.K. Mohapatra ) Judge Rubi