IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK CRLMC No.477 of 2026 Sanjay Keshari Mohapatra …. Petitioner(s) Mr. Niranjan Panda, Adv. -versus- State of Odisha & Anr. …. Opposite Party(s) Miss Gayatri Patra, ASC Mr. Manoj Kumar Pati, Adv. CORAM: HON’BLE DR.JUSTICE SANJEEB K PANIGRAHI Order No. ORDER 13.02.2026 01. 1. This matter is taken up through hybrid arrangement. 2. In filing this CRLMC, the Petitioner alleged to be the attacker to the informant-Opposite Party No.2, has prayed for quashing the entire criminal proceeding initiated against him vide Nimapara P.S. Case No.38 of 2025 corresponding to G.R. Case No.147 of 2025 pending in the Court of learned J.M.F.C, Nimapara. 3. Heard the parties and perused records. 4. Learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that the criminal proceeding in question has been maliciously instituted owing to prior animosity between the parties. It is contended that the Petitioner has been falsely implicated and bears no nexus whatsoever with the offences alleged Digitally Signed Signed by: AYASKANTA JENA Designation: Personal Assistant Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa Date: 18-Feb-2026 18:06:39 Signature Not Verified in the impugned FIR. Learned counsel emphatically asserts that the Petitioner has neither extended any threat to the husband of the informant nor intimidated any person in the locality, as alleged. According to him, the continuation of the 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. 5. In opposition, learned counsel for the State submits that pursuant to the registration of the F.I.R., investigation has been duly conducted and culminated in submission of charge-sheet against the Petitioner. 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, the defence plea of prior enmity, 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 Digitally Signed Signed by: AYASKANTA JENA Designation: Personal Assistant Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa Date: 18-Feb-2026 18:06:39 Signature Not Verified legitimate prosecution. She 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 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: 18-Feb-2026 18:06:39 10. In the present case, this Court does not find any patent illegality, jurisdictional error, or legal embargo warranting interference. The defence plea of prior enmity and false implication are matters to be established before the learned trial court 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