p. 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK CRLMC No.829 of 2026 Tarjan Kumar Patra …. Petitioner(s) Mr. Suryakanta Dwibedi, Adv. -versus- State of Odisha & Anr. …. Opposite Party(s) Mr. Raj Bhusan Dash, ASC CORAM: HON’BLE DR.JUSTICE SANJEEB K PANIGRAHI Order No. 01. ORDER 19.03.2026 1. This matter is taken up through hybrid arrangement. 2. By filing the present CRLMC, the Petitioner has prayed for quashing the order dated 15.04.2025 passed by the learned J.M.F.C. (R), Rourkela in connection with G.R. Case No.252 of 2025 corresponding to Bandamunda P.S. Case No.30 of 2025, whereby the learned trial Court took cognizance of the offences punishable under Sections 115(2)/126(2)/109/3(5) of the BNS. Apart from the above, the Petitioner has also prayed for quashing the entire criminal proceedings initiated against him in connection with S.T. Case No.27/18 of 2026 (arising out of the G.R. Case No.252 of 2025), pending before the learned 2nd Addl. Sessions Judge, Rourkela. Digitally Signed Signed by: SIPUN BEHERA Designation: Senior Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK Date: 19-Mar-2026 16:38:46 Signature Not Verified p. 2 3. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner and learned counsel for the State. 4. Learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that the allegations against the Petitioner are wholly false and fabricated and that the Petitioner is in no way involved in the alleged commission of the offences. It is further contended that, upon a bare perusal of the F.I.R. and the materials collected and placed on record, there is absolutely no material to constitute a prima facie case against the Petitioner in any manner whatsoever. 5. Learned counsel for the Petitioner further submits that the Petitioner has not been named in the F.I.R. The only allegation against him is that he pushed the injured person, whereas the specific allegation of assault has been attributed to one Suraj Yadav. Considering the nature of injury and the alleged weapon of offence, i.e., an iron bangle, the offence under Section 109 of the BNS, 2023 is not made out. Moreover, the said co-accused, Suraj Yadav, also sustained five injuries on his person, and the prosecution is duty-bound to explain the injuries caused to the accused. 6. Learned counsel further contends that the prosecution has failed to produce any material indicating that the Petitioner, along with the other accused persons, had any intention to cause death of the injured. A perusal of the injury report reveals that the injuries are simple in nature, p. 3 and in the totality of the facts and circumstances, it is evident that the intention to commit murder is wholly absent. 7. Learned counsel for the Petitioner further contends that 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. 8. Per contra, 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. 9. 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 interference would stifle a legitimate prosecution. He prays for dismissal of the present CRLMC. Page 4 of 5 10. 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. 11. 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. 12. 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. 13. In the present case, this Court does not find any patent illegality, jurisdictional error, or legal embargo warranting interference. Page 5 of 5 14. This Court, in the present context, declines to quash the entire above noted criminal proceedings 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. 15. This CRLMC is, accordingly, dismissed. 16. Pending application (s), if any, shall stand disposed of. (Dr. Sanjeeb K Panigrahi) Judge Sipun