IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT UTTACK CRLREV No. 268 of 2026 Parshuram Das &. Petitioner Mr. S. Mohanty, Advocate -versus- 1. State of Odisha 2. Chinmoy Kar &. Opposite Parties Mr. C.R. Swain, AGA CORAM: JUSTICE V. NARASINGH Order No. ORDER 21.04.2026 02. 1. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner and learned counsel for the State. 2. The present Revision has been filed assailing the order dated 09.02.2026 passed by the learned J.M.F.C. (IV), Cuttack in I.C.C. Case No.513 of 2022 rejecting the prayer of the Petitioner for discharge in an accusation under Section 138 of NI Act,. 3. The order of cognizance is challenged on two grounds, one is that in effect the cheque was issued at the behest of one Sai Sikhya Group of Institutions of Balisahi, Cuttack and the said institution having admittedly not been arrayed as accused, the complaint is not maintainable and the other ground is that the branch in question was only authorized to grant cheque to a limit up to Rs.10,00,000/-. Admittedly, the amount being of Rs.22,50,000/-, ex- facie it falsifies the accusation. 4. To fortify his submission, learned counsel for the Petitioner relies on the judgment of this Court in Bijaya Manjari Satpathy vs. State of Orissa & Ors. reported in 2022 SCC OnLine Ori 4092. 5. Considering the submission, this Court feels it just and proper to deal with the judgment on which much reliance is placed by the learned counsel for the Petitioner. 6. On a bare perusal of the said judgment, it comes to the fore that the cheque in the cited case was in fact on account of the <trust= and since admittedly the said institution was not arrayed as an accused, referring to the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Pawan Kumar Goal v. State of Uttar Pradesh and another; 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1598, order of cognizance was set-aside. 7. To test the veracity of the stand of the Petitioner, this Court requested the learned counsel for the Petitioner to place on record the cheque in question and the same has been done by way of affidavit. For convenience of reference the same is extracted hereunder:- 8. On a bare perusal of the said cheque, it is seen that it is issued in the individual capacity of the Petitioner and there is no reference to any trust and so far as the pecuniary limit which is urged by the learned counsel for the Petitioner, is a matter for trial. 9. Keeping in view the judgment of this Court in the case of Sanjabij Tari vs. Kishore S. Borcar & Another, 2025 SCC Online SC 2069 and ex-facie the judgment cited by the learned counsel for the Petitioner is distinguishable and is not applicable in the facts of the case, considering the factual matrix of the case as above, on a perspicuous analysis of the materials on record, this Court holds that there is no infirmity, in the order passed by the learned Trial Court in taking cognizance, warranting interference. 10. It is needless to state that the observations made hereinabove are only in the connection with considering the challenge of the Petitioner in the order of cognizance. 11. During the trial, it shall be open for the Petitioner to raise all the defences that are available to him in law which shall be taken into account independently without being prejudiced by the observations made hereinabove which was in connection with considering of the prayer of the Petitioner assailing the order of cognizance. 12. Accordingly, the CRLREV along with I.A. stand disposed of. (V. NARASINGH) Judge Ayesha