p. 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK CRLMC No.1816 of 2026 Jagabandhu Behera …. Petitioner(s) Mr. Saroj Ranjan Subudhi, Adv. versus- State of Odisha …. Opposite Party(s) Smt. Sarita Moharana, ASC CORAM: HON’BLE DR.JUSTICE SANJEEB K PANIGRAHI Order No. 01. ORDER 29.06.2026 1. This matter is taken up through hybrid arrangement. 2. In filing the present CRLMC, the Petitioner against whom the allegation of misappropriation of public fund is made, has prayed for quashing the entire criminal proceeding initiated against him vide C.T. Case No.5 of 2024 arising out of EOW P.S. Case No.5 of 2019 pending before the Court of learned Presiding Officer, Designated Court under the OPID Act, Cuttack. 3. Heard. 4. The factual scenario of the case in brevity remains:- i. While the informant was working as the Regional Manager, Odisha Gramya Bank, Cuttack, an investigation was conducted by the Head Office. During course of said investigation it was ascertained that during the year 2008 to 2009 Digitally Signed Signed by: AYASKANTA JENA Designation: Personal Assistant Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa Date: 30-Jun-2026 11:30:33 Signature Not Verified p. 2 twenty borrowers had availed loans to the tune of Rs.38.49 lakhs from Bidanasi Branch, at- Hindolkothi, Tulsipur, Cuttack by submitting forged documents. The scheme under which the said loans were sanctioned, was exclusively meant for the salaried persons of the Government and PWUS. During the said period, one Amiya Kumar Das was working as the Branch Manager of that Branch. It was again alleged that out of 20 persons 12 persons were falsely shown as the employees of the R. & B. Division. Rest 8 persons though were employees of R. & B. Division, their loans were sanctioned on the basis of the similar forged documents. Accordingly, upon lodging of the F.I.R in the local Police Station and on completion of investigation, the Petitioner was booked for the offences under Sections 420/ 406/ 409/ 467/ 468/ 471/ 120-B of the I.P.C. Hence, the present CRLMC. 5. Learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that the Petitioner had availed the loan in question by submitting all the genuine documents required for the said purpose. He has never submitted any forged documents in order to avail the loan in question. The Petitioner bears no nexus whatsoever with the offences alleged in the impugned FIR. According to him, continuation of the Digitally Signed Signed by: AYASKANTA JENA Designation: Personal Assistant Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa Date: 30-Jun-2026 11:30:33 Signature Not Verified p. 3 proceeding would amount to an abuse of the process of Court and result in undue harassment to the Petitioner. On these premises, he prays that this Court may be pleased to allow the relief sought in the present CRLMC and quash the impugned proceeding in the interest of justice. 6. In opposition, learned counsel for the State submits that pursuant to registration of the F.I.R., investigation has been duly conducted and culminated in submission of charge-sheet. She further contends that the veracity of the allegations and the question of false implication are all matters to be adjudicated upon evidence during the course of trial. According to her, premature interference would stifle a legitimate prosecution. She, accordingly, prays for dismissal of the present CRLMC. 7. Having considered the rival submissions advanced on behalf of the parties and upon perusal of the materials available on record, this Court finds that the investigation has culminated in submission of charge-sheet. At this juncture, the question as to whether the Petitioner has in fact committed the offences alleged against him is essentially a matter to be adjudicated upon appreciation of evidence during trial. 8. It is trite that evaluation of factual controversies, assessment of credibility of witnesses, and appreciation Digitally Signed Signed by: AYASKANTA JENA Designation: Personal Assistant Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa Date: 30-Jun-2026 11:30:33 Signature Not Verified p. 4 of evidence fall squarely within the domain of the trial court. The inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is not intended to supplant the statutory procedure of trial or to conduct a mini-trial at the pre-trial stage. 9. The power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is to be exercised sparingly, with circumspection, and only in rare cases where the complaint or charge-sheet on its face discloses no offence, or where there exists a legal bar to the institution or continuance of the proceeding, or where continuation of the prosecution would amount to a manifest abuse of the process of Court. In the absence of such exceptional circumstances, judicial restraint must prevail. In the present case, this Court does not find any patent illegality, jurisdictional error, or legal embargo warranting interference. The defence plea of false implication are matters to be established before the learned trial court in accordance with law. 10. Accordingly, this Court declines to exercise its inherent jurisdiction to quash the aforesaid criminal proceeding. 11. This CRLMC is, accordingly, dismissed. (Dr. Sanjeeb K Panigrahi) Judge Ayaskanta Designation: Personal Assistant