IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK CRLMC No.659 of 2026 Rudra Prasad Rath & Ors. …. Petitioner(s) Mr. Hari Krushna Panigrahi, Adv. -versus- State of Odisha & Anr. …. Opposite Party(s) Smt. Sarita Moharana, ASC CORAM: HON’BLE DR.JUSTICE SANJEEB K PANIGRAHI Order No. ORDER 05.03.2026 01. 1. This matter is taken up through hybrid arrangement. 2. In filing this CRLMC, the Petitioner No.1 being the husband of the informant and the Petitioner Nos.2 & 3 being her parents-in-laws against whom the criminal proceeding in question is instituted due to some matrimonial dispute, have prayed for quashing the entire criminal proceeding initiated against them vide G.R. No.373/2023 arising out of Daspalla P.S. Case No.0218 dated 31.08.2023 pending before the Court of learned J.M.F.C, Daspalla. 3. Heard learned counsel for the respective parties and perused the records. 4. Learned counsel for the Petitioners submits that the above noted criminal proceeding has been initiated against Digitally Signed Signed by: AYASKANTA JENA Designation: Personal Assistant Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa Date: 05-Mar-2026 17:52:30 Signature Not Verified the Petitioners based on the false allegations. It is contended that the Petitioners have been falsely implicated and bear no nexus whatsoever with the offences alleged in the impugned FIR. Learned counsel submits that continuation of the proceeding would amount to an abuse of the process of Court and result in undue harassment to the Petitioners. 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. 5. 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 against the Petitioners. She further contends that charge has already been framed. It is contended that at this stage, when the investigating agency has found prima facie materials and placed the same before the learned Court below, there exists no compelling or exceptional circumstance warranting exercise of inherent jurisdiction to quash the proceeding. 6. Learned counsel further submits that the veracity of the allegations and the question of false implication are all matters to be adjudicated upon recording of evidence during course of trial. According to him, premature Digitally Signed Signed by: AYASKANTA JENA Designation: Personal Assistant Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa Date: 05-Mar-2026 17:52:30 Signature Not Verified 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 Petitioners have in fact committed the offences alleged against them 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 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. Digitally Signed Signed by: AYASKANTA JENA Designation: Personal Assistant Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa Date: 05-Mar-2026 17:52:30 10. In the present case, this Court does not find any patent illegality, jurisdictional error, or legal embargo warranting interference. However, this Court grants liberty to the Petitioners to file a petition for discharge at the time of trial which shall be considered and disposed of in accordance with law. 11. Accordingly, this Court declines to exercise its inherent jurisdiction to quash the aforesaid criminal proceeding. 12. This CRLMC is, accordingly, dismissed. (Dr. Sanjeeb K Panigrahi) Judge Ayaskanta Designation: Personal Assistant