BATAKRUSHNA DEHURY vs STATE OF ODISHA

Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
Date: 27-May-2026 15:45:01
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
CRLMC No.163 of 2025
(In the matter of an application under Section 482 of Criminal Procedure
Code, 1973/ Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita,
2023).

Batakrushna Dehury … Petitioner(s)
-versus-
State of Odisha & Anr. … Opposite Party (s)

:
Advocates appeared in the case through Hybrid Mode


For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Anish Ankur Mishra, Adv.
Mr. Prasanna Kumar Mishra, Adv.

For Opposite Party (s) : Mr. Tej Kumar, ASC
Mr. Debi Prasad Dhal, Sr. Adv.
along with Associates
(for O.P.2)
CORAM:
DR. JUSTICE SANJEEB K PANIGRAHI


DATE OF HEARING: -26.03.2026
DATE OF JUDGMENT: - 22.05.2026


Dr. Sanjeeb K Panigrahi, J.
1. The Petitioner has instituted the present Criminal Miscellaneous Case
under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973/ Section 528 of
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, invoking inherent jurisdiction
of this Court, inter alia , seeking to quash/set aside the order dated
02.01.2025 passed by the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate,
Kamakhyanagar in G.R. Case No.696 of 2022 being illegal, arbitrary and
unsustainable in law.
Page 1

Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
Date: 27-May-2026 15:45:01
ACTUAL ATRIX OF THE ASE
I. F M C :
2. The brief facts of the case are as follows:
(i) Opposite Party No. 2 was the original owner of a JS81 Excavator
Machine of JCB make bearing Serial No./Machine No. 1799898,
manufactured in 2014, which he had purchased with financial
assistance from Magma Fincorp Ltd.
(ii) Due to financial difficulties, Opposite Party No.2 approached the
Petitioner and offered to sell the aforesaid JCB machine for a
consideration of Rs.13 lakhs. The Petitioner accepted the proposal
and paid the entire consideration amount to Opposite Party No.2.
Thereafter, Opposite Party No.2 delivered possession of the JCB to
the Petitioner on 13.11.2018 after clearing the dues of Magma
Finance Company. Since the Petitioner had no experience in
operating or managing the JCB machine, it was mutually agreed that
Opposite Party No.2 would manage the machine and pay a monthly
rent of Rs. 50,000/- to the Petitioner.

(iii) The Petitioner also availed financial assistance from SREI Finance
Company for the said JCB. After taking possession, Opposite Party
No.2 got an agreement executed in the name of his daughter-in-law,
named, Ranjita Jena, stipulating that she would manage the vehicle
and pay a monthly rent of Rs. 50,000/- to the Petitioner.

(iv) Pursuant to the agreement dated 21.01.2019, the said JCB was
managed by Opposite Party No.2 through Ranjita Jena (his
daughter-in-law). However, Opposite Party No.2 neither paid the
agreed monthly rent to the Petitioner nor allowed the Petitioner to
take possession of the JCB machine. Consequently, the Petitioner
Page 2

Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
Date: 27-May-2026 15:45:01
lodged an FIR at Tumusinga Police Station against Opposite Party
No. 2, his son Jitu Jena and his daughter-in-law Ranjita Jena, which
was registered as Tumusinga P.S. Case No. 222 of 2022 under
Sections 420/406/506/294/34 of the Indian Penal Code, corresponding
to G.R. Case No. 696 of 2022.

(v) During the course of investigation, the Investigating Agency seized
the JCB and reported the matter to the learned S.D.J.M.,
Kamakhyanagar. The Investigating Agency also seized documents
relating to the financing of the vehicle and examined witnesses,
including staff of SREI Finance Company.

(vi) In the aforesaid G.R. case, Opposite Party No.2 filed an application
under Section 457 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking release
of the JCB in his favour. The said application was contested by the
Petitioner and the learned Magistrate, upon hearing all parties and
perusing the materials on record, rejected the prayer of Opposite
Party No.2 by order dated 19.12.2022 in CMC No. 63 of 2022.

(vii) Challenging the order dated 19.12.2022, Opposite Party No.2 filed
Criminal Revision No.01 of 2023 before the learned Additional
Sessions Judge, Kamakhyanagar. Upon hearing the parties, the
learned Revisional Court confirmed the order of the learned
Magistrate and dismissed the revision petition.

(viii) Thereafter, upon an application filed by the Petitioner, the learned
Magistrate, being satisfied, was pleased to release the JCB in favour
of the Petitioner by order dated 21.08.2023 in Criminal Misc. Case
No.79 of 2023 (arising out of G.R. Case No. 696 of 2022). The
Page 3

Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
Date: 27-May-2026 15:45:01
Petitioner complied with the terms and conditions and the JCB
machine was accordingly released in his favour on 22.08.2023.
(ix) Having failed in his attempts to secure release of the JCB, Opposite
Party No.2 filed ICC Case No.11 of 2023 before the Court of the
learned S.D.J.M., Kamakhyanagar. Upon receipt of the complaint
petition, the learned Magistrate, without proper application of mind,
forwarded the complaint to Tumusinga Police Station for
investigation under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal
Procedure. Based on the same, Tumusinga P.S. Case No.124 of 2023
was registered against the Petitioner under Sections
406/419/420/467/468/471 of the Indian Penal Code.

(x) Following the registration of the FIR in Tumusinga P.S. Case No. 124
of 2023 (corresponding to G.R. Case No.504 of 2023), the police
repeatedly summoned the Petitioner. Apprehending arrest, the
Petitioner approached this Court by filing ABLAPL No.10221 of
2023. Opposite Party No.2 entered appearance. Upon hearing the
parties, this Court, by order dated 30.01.2024, allowed the
anticipatory bail application and directed that the Petitioner be
released on bail upon surrender, subject to conditions including full
cooperation with the investigation and not transferring ownership
of the machine without leave of the trial Court.

(xi) The Petitioner duly cooperated with the investigation whenever
required. However, the Investigating Officer harassed the Petitioner
by repeatedly demanding production of the original sale deed. The
Petitioner clarified that he had never executed any such sale deed
and that the signature appearing on the document produced by
Page 4

Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
Date: 27-May-2026 15:45:01
Opposite Party No.2 was forged. The Investigating Officer issued a
notice dated 19.12.2024 under Section 91 Cr.P.C. directing
production of the alleged original sale deed. In response, the
Petitioner, by registered letter dated 22.12.2024, stated that no such
document had been executed or was in his possession.

(xii) Subsequently, without the knowledge of the Petitioner, the
Investigating Officer filed an application before the learned
Magistrate in G.R. Case No.696 of 2022 seeking cancellation of the
zimanama. By letter dated 27.12.2024, the Investigating Officer
requested permission to seize the JCB from the custody of the
Petitioner and to release it in favour of the alleged true owner
(Opposite Party No.2).
(xiii) The learned Magistrate, by order dated 02.01.2025, rejected the
prayer of the Investigating Officer to seize the vehicle from the
Petitioner in connection with G.R. Case No. 504 of 2023.

(xiv) However, without issuing notice to the Petitioner or affording him
an opportunity of being heard, the learned Magistrate, by a separate
order dated 02.01.2025, cancelled the earlier order releasing the
seized vehicle in favour of the Petitioner. The Petitioner was
directed to produce the JCB machine before the Investigating Officer
within 10 days, failing which the Investigating Officer was
permitted to take appropriate legal steps to recover possession of the
vehicle. The said order dated 02.01.2025 is impugned herein.
UBMISSIONS N EHALF F HE ETITIONER
II. S O B O T P :
3. Learned counsel for the Petitioner earnestly made the following
submissions in support of his contentions:
Page 5

Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
Date: 27-May-2026 15:45:01
(i) The agreement dated 21.01.2019 is neither disputed nor reported by
the I.O. to be forged. It is only the so-called sale deed, allegedly
prepared by Opposite Party No.2 to support the filing of the
complaint case, which has been reported by the I.O. to contain a
forged signature of Opposite Party No.2. However, upon scrutiny of
the said sale deed, it appears that the signature of the Petitioner is
also forged, yet it has not been sent for examination despite repeated
requests by the Petitioner.
(ii) From the FIR, it appears that the Petitioner never stated anything
about the execution of such a sale deed, and it is only for the first
time that Opposite Party No.2 has raised such an allegation. Even
during the consideration of his application for release of the JCB
before the learned Magistrate or the Revisional Court, he never
disclosed the existence of the so-called "sale deed." While
considering the Petitioner’s application under Section 457 Cr.P.C.,
the learned Magistrate also examined the said sale deed and, being
satisfied that it is not admissible in evidence, directed the release of
the JCB in favour of the Petitioner.
(iii) As per the prosecution case, the original sale deed is not available.
The signature has therefore been verified from a Xerox copy, which
is not admissible in evidence.

(iv) Admittedly, two different FIRs have been registered, one at the
instance of the Petitioner and another at the instance of Opposite
Party No.2. It is also admitted on record that, after seizure of the
vehicle, Opposite Party No.2 applied for release of the JCB in his
favour, which was rejected upon consideration of his contentions.
Page 6

Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
Date: 27-May-2026 15:45:01
Thereafter, he filed a revision, and during the pendency of the
revision, he filed a complaint petition alleging the existence of a
forged sale deed. Opposite Party No.2 relied on this document
before the Revisional Court. However, the learned Revisional Court
rejected his prayer for release in his favour. Thereafter, the Petitioner
applied for release of the JCB, which was allowed after
consideration of all materials, including the sale deed.
(v) Except for the allegation that the signature of Opposite Party No.2
on the so-called sale deed is forged, there is no material indicating
who is the scribe or creator of such a deed, whether it is the
Petitioner or Opposite Party No.2. On a bare perusal of the
document and comparison with the Petitioner’s signatures in the
FIR and the vakalatnama, it appears that the signature of the
Petitioner on the alleged sale deed is also forged.

(vi) The police deliberately did not seek verification of the Petitioner’s
signature on the sale deed, despite his request. The authenticity of
the document is yet to be examined during trial.

(vii) It is settled law that a party cannot be compelled to produce a
document to his or her prejudice. The Petitioner has clearly
informed the I.O., in response to notice under Section 91 Cr.P.C.,
that he has no knowledge of the sale deed and has never executed
any such document.

(viii) Therefore, as the Petitioner has fully cooperated with the
investigation, it cannot be said that he has violated any condition. As
such, without issuing notice, the learned court below has exceeded
Page 7

Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
Date: 27-May-2026 15:45:01
its jurisdiction in passing the impugned order, which is liable to be
quashed.
(ix) The I.O. admittedly made two separate prayers, one for taking over
possession of the JCB from the Petitioner and handing it over to
Opposite Party No.2 and the other for cancellation of the interim
release.
(x) In respect of the first prayer, the learned Magistrate, upon
consideration, rejected the request by order dated 02.01.2025.
However, with regard to the second prayer, the learned Magistrate
recalled/cancelled the interim release order on the very same day,
i.e., 02.01.2025, directing the I.O. to take possession of the JCB from
the Petitioner. Surprisingly, despite rejection of the first prayer, the
I.O., after taking possession, handed over the JCB to Opposite Party
No.2, which clearly indicates bias in favour of Opposite Party No.2.
Subsequently, after an interim order was passed in the case, the
learned Magistrate directed the I.O. to recover possession from
Opposite Party No.2. The learned Magistrate thus passed two
contradictory orders on the same day on two different prayers of the
I.O., which is unjustified and renders the impugned order liable to
be quashed.
(xi) Admittedly, no notice was issued to the Petitioner, nor was any
opportunity of hearing afforded to him. Once the order of release
was passed in favour of the Petitioner, any order cancelling the same
would directly affect his rights and interests in the property. In such
circumstances, the learned Magistrate was required to issue notice to
the Petitioner to show cause and to explain whether the allegation of
Page 8

Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
Date: 27-May-2026 15:45:01
violation of conditions was true or legally sustainable. The failure to
provide notice and an opportunity of hearing violates the principles
of natural justice, which form the basic framework of the
Constitution of India

(xii) He placed reliance in the case of M/s Daffodills Pharmaceuticals Ltd.
1
&Anr. v. State of U.P. &Anr. , wherein the relevant paragraph is
reproduced below:
“ 15. In the present case, even if one assumes that
Surender Chaudhary, the accused in the pending criminal
case was involved and had sought to indulge in
objectionable activities, that ipso facto could not have
resulted in unilateral action of the kind which the State
resorted to- against Daffodils, which was never granted
any opportunity of hearing or a chance to represent
against the impugned order. If there is one constant
lodestar that lights the judicial horizon in this country, it
is this: that no one can be inflicted with an adverse order,
without being afforded a minimum opportunity of
hearing, and prior intimation of such a move. This
principle is too well entrenched in the legal ethos of this
country to be ignored, as the state did, in this case .”

(xiii) He also placed reliance in the case of Gurdev Singh and Ors. v. State
2
of Bihar and Ors. , wherein the Supreme Court set aside an order
cancelling the bail at the threshold which was passed without notice
to the accused.
(xiv) While releasing the vehicle, the learned Court below had put
conditions as follows:
i) He will not use the vehicle in any other crime.

1
2019 INSC 1366
2
MANU/SC/0951/2000
Page 9

Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
Date: 27-May-2026 15:45:01
ii) He will produce the vehicle before this Court and I.O. as
and when directed.
iii) He will keep the vehicle insured at all times.
iv) He will not change the color of the vehicle.
v) He will not sale, mortgage, hypothecate the vehicle without
prior permission of this Court.
vi) He will not dispute the identity of the vehicle during the
trial of the case.
vii) He will not change the body of the vehicle without prior
permission of this Court.
None of the conditions is alleged to have been violated. Since the
petitioner did not violate any of the conditions, the cancellation of
the zima / interim release was not permissible. The learned court
below has taken several extraneous grounds for cancellation of the
order, which is clearly hit by Section 362 of the Cr.P.C., as the court
was not authorized to consider other materials for re-examining
whether the release order was legal or illegal. Although the word
“cancellation” is mentioned in the order, in effect it is not a
cancellation but an order recalling the earlier order.
(xv) Section 362 of the Cr.P.C. places a complete embargo on the Court
from reviewing or altering any judgment or final order passed by it.

(xvi) In view of such statutory restriction, since the impugned order is not
based on any violation of conditions, reconsideration of the merits
on the basis of further material produced by the I.O. is wholly
without jurisdiction. It is only a higher forum that may examine
Page 10

Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
Date: 27-May-2026 15:45:01
such material to determine whether the release order can be
sustained.
(xvii) It is true that the I.O. has submitted a final report. However, the
impugned order, having been passed with undue haste, bias, lack of
jurisdiction and in violation of the principles of natural justice, is
liable to be set aside. It is pertinent to mention that the Petitioner has
already filed a protest petition upon submission of the final report
by the I.O. and the dispute still subsists.
III. S UBMISSIONS O N B EHALF O F T HE O PPOSITE P ARTY NO .2:
4.
The Learned Counsel for the Opposite Party No.2 earnestly made the
following submissions in support of his contentions:

(i) At the first instance, the Petitioner filed Criminal Misc. Case No.
79/2023 before the learned SDJM under Section 451 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, seeking interim release of the JCB in his favour
on the ground that he had purchased the JCB in question from
Opposite Party No.2 on the strength of a “Deed of Sale” executed
before the City Notary, Bhubaneswar, on 30.11.2018. Along with the
petition under Section 457 CrPC, the Petitioner filed a copy of the
said “Deed of Sale” before the learned SDJM to substantiate his
claim of ownership over the JCB.
(ii) Subsequently, suppressing the said fact before this Court, the
Petitioner has developed a new version in ABLAPL No. 10221/2023
as well as in the present CRLMC petition, stating that he had
purchased the JCB from Opposite Party No.2 on 13.11.2018 for a
consideration of Rs.13 lakhs.
Page 11

Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
Date: 27-May-2026 15:45:01
(iii) The Petitioner further stated that Opposite Party No.2 delivered the
JCB to him after repayment of the entire loan amount of Rs. 13 lakhs
to Magma Finance Company. The reason for suppressing the earlier
stand and introducing a new version appears to be that, during the
course of police investigation, it came to light that the alleged “Deed
of Sale” dated 30.11.2018 is a fabricated document, which had been
produced before the learned Magistrate along with the petition
under Section 457 CrPC.
(iv)
Upon perusal of the said “Deed of Sale,” the learned SDJM had
released the JCB in favour of the Petitioner on interim zima.
However, a bare perusal of the document reveals that there are no
witnesses to the said “Deed of Sale,” although a column for
witnesses exists and remains blank. Further, the signature of
Opposite Party No.2 on the said document does not match.

(v) Further, the Petitioner has stated in paragraph 11 of the petition that,
after failing to secure release of the JCB, Opposite Party No.2 filed
I.C.C. Case No. 11 of 2023 before the Court of the learned SDJM,
Kamakhyanagar. This assertion is false.
(vi) It is clarified that I.C.C. Case No.11/2023 was filed by Opposite Party
No.2 much prior to the order passed in CMC No.79/2023. The
complaint case was filed on 22.02.2023, whereas the order allowing
CMC No.79/2023 was passed on 21.08.2023.

(vii) The learned SDJM was pleased to forward the complaint petition to
the police station for registration and investigation. Upon
completion of investigation, the Investigating Officer submitted a
Page 12

Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
Date: 27-May-2026 15:45:01
charge sheet against the Petitioner on 30.01.2025 for offences
punishable under Sections 406, 420, 467, 468, and 471 of the IPC.
(viii) Although the Investigating Officer issued notice under Section 91
Cr.P.C., the Petitioner initially avoided compliance and
subsequently suppressed the original “Deed of Sale” and the
agreement with Ranjita Jena. The Petitioner falsely informed the
Investigating Officer that he had not executed the said documents,
whereas, in fact, he had produced the same before the Investigating
Officer on 22.09.2022 and later before the Court along with his
petition under Section 457 Cr.P.C.

(ix) The entire conduct of the Petitioner demonstrates a pattern of
mischief and fraud played upon both the investigating agency and
the Court. During the course of investigation initiated at the instance
of Opposite Party No.2, the Investigating Officer discovered that the
Petitioner had produced false and fabricated documents on
22.09.2022.

(x) Consequently, the Investigating Officer had no option but to move
the learned SDJM for cancellation of the interim zima granted in
favour of the Petitioner on the basis of such forged documents. The
Petitioner was well aware of the order passed by the learned
Magistrate on 02.01.2025. The said order is based on the finding that
the case in which the Petitioner had filed the application under
Section 457 CrPC ended in a final report, and that the documents
relied upon by the Court to grant zima were fraudulent. The order
passed by the learned Magistrate is, therefore, legal, proper, and
justified in all respects. The Petitioner has repeatedly attempted to
Page 13

Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
Date: 27-May-2026 15:45:01
suppress material facts by making inconsistent and misleading
statements.
(xi) It is a well-settled principle of law that if the initial action is not in
accordance with law, subsequent conduct cannot sanctify it. It is also
a settled proposition that when the foundation is removed, the
superstructure collapses. A person who has committed a wrong
cannot be permitted to take advantage of his own wrongdoing.
(xii) Reliance is placed on the judgment in Devendra Kumar v. State of
3
Uttaranchal & Ors. , wherein the Supreme Court held that
dishonesty should not be permitted to bear fruit and persons who
have indulged in fraud or misrepresentation should not be allowed
to benefit. In such circumstances, the Court should not perpetuate
fraud by entertaining petitions on their behalf.
(xiii) In the present case, the very foundation of the Petitioner’s claim is
the alleged “Deed of Sale” dated 30.11.2018, which has been found
to be fraudulent upon due investigation by the Investigating Officer.
Consequently, the Investigating Officer submitted the final form
treating the FIR as false.
(xiv) In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the present
CRLMC petition is not maintainable in law and is liable to be
dismissed with costs.
IV. C OURT S R EASONING AND A NALYSIS :
’
5.
This Court has carefully examined the impugned order dated 02.01.2025
passed by the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Kamakhyanagar
in G.R. Case No.696 of 2022, the materials placed on record including the

3
(2013) 9 SCC 363
Page 14

Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
Date: 27-May-2026 15:45:01
case diary extracts, the previous orders passed by the learned Magistrate
and the Revisional Court, and the written submissions advanced by the
learned counsel for the parties. The core issue for consideration is whether
the learned Magistrate was justified in cancelling the interim release of the
seized JCB excavator in favour of the Petitioner, without issuing any
notice or affording an opportunity of hearing, and on grounds that
essentially seek a review of a final order.
6. This Court finds that the impugned order suffers from multiple fatal legal
infirmities. Foremost is the gross violation of the principles of natural
justice. The order dated 21.08.2023 releasing the vehicle in favour of the
Petitioner was a final judicial order disposing of the Petitioner’s
application under Section 457 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The
Petitioner had complied with the terms and taken possession of the
vehicle on 22.08.2023. Thereafter, when the Investigating Officer moved an
application for cancellation of the zimanama, the learned Magistrate
proceeded to cancel that release order on 02.01.2025, without issuing any
notice, without calling for a response from the Petitioner, and without any
finding that the Petitioner had violated any of the conditions imposed at
the time of release. This is a clear breach of the audialterampartem rule. As
held by the Supreme Court in M/s Daffodills Pharmaceuticals Ltd. &Anr.
. (supra), no person can be inflicted with an adverse
v. State of U.P. &Anr
order affecting his rights without being afforded a minimum opportunity
of hearing. The same principle was reiterated in Gurdev Singh v. State of
Bihar (supra), where the Supreme Court set aside a cancellation order
passed without notice to the affected party. The impugned order,
therefore, cannot be sustained on this ground alone.
Page 15

Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
Date: 27-May-2026 15:45:01
7. Further, the impugned order falls afoul of the embargo contained in
Section 362 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The said provision
unequivocally states that no Court, after it has signed its final order
disposing of a case, shall alter or review the same except to correct a
clerical or arithmetical error. The order dated 21.08.2023 was a final order
disposing of the Petitioner’s claim for interim custody. The learned
Magistrate did not purport to cancel the release on the ground of violation
of any condition. Instead, he proceeded to re-appreciate the entire factual
matrix concerning ownership of the vehicle including the alleged sale
deed, the tax invoice, the No Objection Certificate, and the repayment
records and concluded that the Petitioner’s claim was improbable. This is
nothing short of a review and revision of a previous final order on the
merits, which is expressly prohibited by law. The mere labelling of the
application as one for “cancellation of zimanama” cannot circumvent the
statutory bar. The power to cancel an interim release order exists only
when the conditions of release are breached or when the order was
obtained by fraud practised upon the Court. In the present case, no
condition was alleged to have been violated, and the issue of fraud is a
contentious factual dispute involving examination of signatures and
documents, which is yet to be adjudicated. The Magistrate, by
undertaking a mini-trial on the issue of title at the behest of the
Investigating Officer, has clearly acted without jurisdiction.
8.
The impugned order also suffers from internal inconsistency and
arbitrariness. The record shows that the Investigating Officer made two
distinct prayers: first, to seize the vehicle from the Petitioner and hand it
over to Opposite Party No.2; and second, to cancel the interim release
Page 16

Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
Date: 27-May-2026 15:45:01
order. By a separate order of the same date, the learned Magistrate
rejected the first prayer. Yet, on the very same day, he granted the second
prayer and directed the Petitioner to produce the vehicle before the
Investigating Officer, effectively achieving the very result that he had just
refused. This contradictory approach reflects a non-application of mind
and renders the impugned order arbitrary and capricious. Moreover, it
was later admitted that upon the Petitioner producing the vehicle, the
Investigating Officer handed it over to Opposite Party No.2, which was
precisely the relief that had been rejected. Such conduct by the
investigating agency and the resultant prejudice to the Petitioner further
vitiates the proceedings.

9. This Court is not oblivious to the fact that the Investigating Officer has
submitted a final report in G.R. Case No.504 of 2023, treating the FIR
lodged by Opposite Party No.2 as false, and that a charge sheet has been
filed against the Petitioner. However, that final report is merely an
opinion of the police and not a conclusive adjudication of rights. The
Petitioner has filed a protest petition, which is pending before the learned
Magistrate. The existence of a final report does not empower the criminal
court to unilaterally cancel a prior judicial order without following due
process. The proper course for the Investigating Officer, if he believed that
the release order was obtained by producing forged documents, was to
bring this material to the notice of the Court and seek appropriate
directions after giving notice to the Petitioner. Instead, the learned
Magistrate pre-judged the issue by relying solely on the Investigating
Officer’s assertions, without hearing the Petitioner. This is a classic case of
Page 17

Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
Date: 27-May-2026 15:45:01
procedural impropriety that strikes at the root of the fairness of the
judicial process.
V. CONCLUSION :
10.
In light of the foregoing discussion, this Court is satisfied that the
impugned order dated 02.01.2025 is not sustainable in law. It is
accordingly quashed and set aside. The order dated 21.08.2023 releasing
the JCB excavator in favour of the Petitioner shall stand restored. The
learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Kamakhyanagar, is directed to
hear and dispose of the pending protest petition filed by the Petitioner in
accordance with law, uninfluenced by any observations made in the
impugned order, and after giving an opportunity of hearing to all parties.
The Petitioner is directed to continue to abide by all conditions imposed in
the original release order, including producing the vehicle as and when
directed by the trial Court pending final adjudication. The Criminal
Miscellaneous Case is allowed.
11. allowed
Accordingly, the CRLMC stands .
12.
Interim order, if any, passed earlier stands vacated.


(Dr. Sanjeeb K Panigrahi)
Judge


Orissa High Court, Cuttack,
nd
Dated the 22 May, 2026/



Page 18