p. 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK CRLMC No.504 of 2026 Jawahar Lal Nayak …. Petitioner(s) Mr. Rajendra Kumar Sahu, Adv. -versus- State of Odisha …. Opposite Party(s) Mr. Debasish Nayak, AGA CORAM: HON’BLE DR.JUSTICE SANJEEB K PANIGRAHI Order No. 01. ORDER 13.03.2026 1. This matter is taken up through hybrid arrangement. 2. By filing the present CRLMC, the Petitioner has prayed for quashing the entire criminal proceedings initiated against him in connection with C.T. Case No.68 of 2023 corresponding to C.T. Case No.4525 of 2021 arising out of EOW P.S. Case No.10 of 2021, pending adjudication before the learned Presiding Officer, O.P.I.D. Court, Cuttack. 3. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner and learned counsel for the State. 4. Learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that the Petitioner has been arrayed as an accused in connection with allegations relating to the issuance of alleged fake work orders in the name of Odisha Tourism Development Corporation Ltd. (OTDC), despite there being no prima Digitally Signed Signed by: SIPUN BEHERA Designation: Senior Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK Date: 13-Mar-2026 17:38:59 Signature Not Verified p. 2 facie material to show his involvement in any act of forgery, impersonation or cheating. 5. Learned counsel for the Petitioner further contends that the gravamen of allegations in the F.I.R. and investigation is against accused Chandan Akash Mohanty and Swami Bijaynandaji Maharaj @ Bijaynanda Choudhury, who allegedly forged OTDC work orders, impersonated officials, created fake seals and letterheads and induced the victim contractor to part with large sums of money. 6. Learned counsel for the Petitioner further contends that the Petitioner is not named as a principal accused in the F.I.R. and no allegation of forging, preparing, using or possessing any forged document has been attributed to him at any stage of investigation. During the course of investigation, the Petitioner has been implicated only on the allegation that he introduced the victim contractor to the other accused persons, being socially acquainted with them and allegedly act as a mediator. There is no allegation that the Petitioner had any authority, control or role in issuance of work orders or handling of OTDC documents. 7. Learned counsel for the Petitioner further contends that the essential ingredients of offences under Sections 467/468/471/472/474/475 of the I.P.C., namely, creation, possession or use of forged valuable security or documents, are conspicuously absent insofar as the Petitioner is p. 3 concerned, even if the entire prosecution case is accepted on its face value. 8. Learned counsel for the Petitioner further contends that the Petitioner is a private individual and a retired school teacher, having no connection whatsoever with the functioning, administration or engineering wing of Odisha Tourism Development Corporation Ltd., and he held no position or authority enabling him to issue, influence or facilitate issuance of any work order. 9. Learned counsel for the Petitioner further contends that because criminal law does not recognize vicarious liability in such circumstances and the Petitioner cannot be prosecuted merely because he is acquainted with or related to either the victim or the co-accused, in the absence of specific acts constituting the alleged offences. 10. Learned counsel for the Petitioner further contends that the allegations against the Petitioner are omnibus, inferential and derivative in nature and do not disclose any direct act on his part satisfying the ingredients of the offences alleged, thereby rendering continuation of the proceedings against him wholly unjustified. 11. Per contra, learned counsel for the State submits that the Petitioner had taken the victim contractor to one Baba and had a specific role in the alleged conspiracy. He further contends that the truth will emerge only after conclusion of p. 4 the trial. Accordingly, he prays for dismissal of this CRLMC. 12. Considering the submissions made on behalf of both the parties and on perusal of the available materials on record, this Court is not persuaded by the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the Petitioner to scuttle/terminate the trial at this stage without a thorough examination of the matter. It is well settled that the appreciation of evidence is a function of the trial court. This Court in exercise of power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. cannot assume such jurisdiction and put an end to the process of trial provided under the law. The power under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. at the pre-trial stage should not be used in a routine manner, but it has to be used sparingly only in such appropriate cases, where it manifestly appears that there is a legal bar against the institution or continuation of the criminal proceedings. This Court, in the present context, declines to quash the entire above noted criminal proceeding initiated against the Petitioner. However, this Court is of the view that if the Petitioner approaches the learned trial Court by filing a discharge petition at the appropriate stage, the same shall be considered in accordance with law. 13. This CRLMC is, accordingly, disposed of. Page 5 of 5 14. Pending application (s), if any, shall stand disposed of. (Dr. Sanjeeb K Panigrahi) Judge Sipun