Orissa High Court
Rudra Prasad Rath & vs State Of Odisha & Anr. …. Opposite … on 5 March, 2026
Author: Sanjeeb K Panigrahi
Bench: Sanjeeb K Panigrahi
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
CRLMC No.659 of 2026
Rudra Prasad Rath & .... Petitioner(s)
Ors.
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 ORDER
No. 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.
Signature Not Verified 4. Learned counsel for the Petitioners submits that the
Digitally Signed
Signed by: AYASKANTA JENA
Designation: Personal Assistant
Reason: Authentication
Location: High Court of Orissa
above noted criminal proceeding has been initiated against
Date: 05-Mar-2026 17:52:30
Page 1 of 4
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
Signature Not Verified 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
Page 2 of 4
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
Signature Not Verified such exceptional circumstances, judicial restraint must
Digitally Signed
Signed by: AYASKANTA JENA
Designation: Personal Assistant
Reason: Authentication
Location: High Court of Orissa
Date: 05-Mar-2026 17:52:30
prevail.
Page 3 of 4
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
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: AYASKANTA JENA
Designation: Personal Assistant
Reason: Authentication
Location: High Court of Orissa
Date: 05-Mar-2026 17:52:30
Page 4 of 4