Orissa High Court
) Nirupama Sahoo vs ) State Of Odisha ….. Opposite Parties on 5 August, 2025
Author: Aditya Kumar Mohapatra
Bench: Aditya Kumar Mohapatra
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
CRLMC No.2414 of 2025
1) Nirupama Sahoo ..... Petitioners
2) Suchitra Sahoo Represented By Adv. -
Mr. Surendra Kumar
Biswal
-versus-
1) State of Odisha ..... Opposite Parties
2) Chhabirani Mohanta Represented By Adv. -
Mr. U.R. Jena, AGA
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR MOHAPATRA
ORDER
05.08.2025
Order No.
02. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement
(Virtual/ Physical Mode).
2. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioners as well as
learned counsel for the State-Opposite Party No.1. Perused
the application as well as the documents annexed thereto.
3. By filing the application under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.,
the Petitioners have prayed for quashing of the order taking
cognizance dated 18.05.2018 passed by the learned S.D.J.M.,
Keonjhar in G.R. Case No.451 of 2016 taking cognizance of
the offences under Sections 420/294/506/468/471/34 of I.P.C.
under Annexure-3 to the application as well as the entire
criminal proceeding in G.R. Case No.451 of 2016, arising out
of Keonjhar Town P.S. Case No.101 of 2016, pending before
Page 1 of 3.
the learned S.D.J.M., Keonjhar.
4. Learned counsel for the Petitioner, at the outset,
contended that although the case was registered in the year
2016, however, out of 54 prosecution witnesses, 9 have been
examined so far. He further submitted that all the witnesses
examined from the side of the prosecution have turned hostile.
In the aforesaid factual backdrop, learned counsel for the
Petitioner contended that the chance of conviction is very
bleak. On such ground, learned counsel for the Petitioner
contended that the present criminal proceeding be dropped
before the Petitioner from facing the harassment of the trial.
5. Learned counsel for the State, on the other hand, opposed
to the prayer made in the present application on the ground
that the Petitioner has been named in the F.I.R. and after
completion of investigation he also been named in the charge
sheet and that the trial has already commenced.
6. Having heard the learned counsels appearing for the
respective parties and on a careful examination of the
materials on record, further on a close scrutiny of the order
taking cognizance as well as the documents annexed to the
application, this Court is of the view that since the trial has
commenced and 9 prosecution witnesses have been examined,
it would not be proper to quash the entire criminal proceeding
at this stage. However, taking into consideration the fact that
Page 2 of 3.
the case is of the year 2016, this Court deems it proper to
dispose of the application with a direction to the trial court to
make every endeavour to expedite the trial and conclude the
same as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period
of four months from the date of communication of this order.
7. With the aforesaid observation and direction, the
CRLMC stands disposed of.
( A.K. Mohapatra )
Judge
Debasis
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: DEBASIS AECH
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK.
Date: 06-Aug-2025 19:18:32
Page 3 of 3.