DEBRAJ MEHER vs STATE OF ODISHA
- Court
- Odisha High Court
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. 3580 of 2025
(In the matter of an application under Section 482 of Criminal
Procedure Code, 1973/ Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha
Sanhita).
Debraj Meher …. Petitioner(s)
-versus-
State of Odisha & Anr. …. Opposite Party (s)
Advocates appeared in the case through Hybrid Mode :
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. H.N. Mohapatra, Adv.
For Opposite Party (s) : Mr. Mr. Sonak Mishra, ASC
Mr. Himanshu Sekhar Mishra, Adv.
(for O.P. No.2).
CORAM:
DR. JUSTICE SANJEEB K PANIGRAHI
DATE OF HEARING:-15.04.2026
DATE OF JUDGMENT:-22.05.2026
Dr. Sanjeeb K Panigrahi, J.
1. The Petitioner, by way of the present petition, has called in question the
legality and propriety of the order dated 23.12.2024 passed by the
learned S.D.J.M., Balangir, whereby cognizance was taken on
07.03.2025 and process was issued under Section 138 of the Negotiable
Instruments Act, 1881 in I.C.C. Case No. 66 of 2024, despite the fact that
a complaint case instituted earlier by the Petitioner, being I.C.C. Case
No. 25 of 2025, was already pending prior to the institution of the
aforesaid complaint case. The said earlier complaint pertains to the
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
alleged commission of offences punishable under Sections 198, 199, 201,
126(2), 127(1), 129, 130, 318(4), 351 and 308 read with Section 3 of the
Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, as well as Section 29 of the Police Act.
I. F ACTUAL M ATRIX OF THE C ASE :
2. The brief facts of the case are as follows:
(i) The present case manates from a Complaint Petition instituted by
Opposite Party No. 2 against the Petitioner, which came to be
registered as I.C.C. Case No. 66 of 2024 before the Court of the
learned S.D.J.M., Balangir, alleging commission of the offence
punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act,
1881.
(ii) It is the case of the Petitioner that a long-standing animosity and
deep-rooted dispute exists between the Petitioner and Opposite
Party No. 2, and that on account of such strained relations,
Opposite Party No. 2 has allegedly been making persistent
attempts to harass and cause undue inconvenience to the
Petitioner.
(iii) It is further alleged by the Petitioner that Opposite Party No. 2, in
active connivance with one Abani Sahoo, the then Inspector-in-
Charge (IIC) of Balangir Town Police Station, misused such
alleged administrative proximity to exert pressure upon the
Petitioner. It is stated that, acting at the behest and on the
instructions of Opposite Party No. 2, the said IIC contacted the
Petitioner over his mobile phone on 23.09.2024 at about 9:30 P.M.
and again on 24.09.2024 at about 10:49 A.M., informing him that a
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
criminal case had been registered against him and directing him
to appear before the police station forthwith.
further
(iv) It is stated that, in compliance with the directions issued
by the said I.I.C., the Petitioner appeared at Balangir Town Police
Station on 24.09.2024 at about 11:15 A.M. Thereafter, the I.I.C.
directed the Petitioner to proceed to the office of the Sub-
Divisional Police Officer (S.D.P.O.), Balangir. It is alleged that
although the S.D.P.O. was not present in the office at the relevant
point of time, within a short while the said I.I.C., namely Abani
Sahoo, arrived at the premises, called the Petitioner inside the
chamber of the S.D.P.O., and locked the door from inside. The
Petitioner allegedly found Opposite Party No. 2 and her husband
already present inside the said chamber.
(v) Thereafter, it is alleged that the said I.I.C. resorted to intimidating
and coercive tactics against the Petitioner, thereby creating an
atmosphere of fear, compulsion and undue pressure. It is further
stated that, under such alleged duress and coercion, the Petitioner
was compelled to sign upon a stamp paper and execute a written
statement purportedly acknowledging that he had borrowed a
sum of Rs.50,00,000/- from Opposite Party No. 2.
(vi) It is further alleged that the said I.I.C. directed the Petitioner to
arrange for his chequebook to be brought from his residence and
to hand over two blank cheques to Opposite Party No. 2. It is
stated that, being under an atmosphere of fear, intimidation and
coercion allegedly created by the conduct of the police official, 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 contacted his wife over telephone, pursuant to which
she brought the chequebook to the office of the S.D.P.O., Balangir,
and handed over the same to the Petitioner at the said premises.
(vii) It is further alleged that, under continuous pressure and mental
coercion purportedly exerted by the said I.I.C., the Petitioner was
compelled to fill up two cheques bearing Nos. 104201 and 104202
for an amount of Rs.25,00,000/- each and hand over the same to
Opposite Party No. 2. It is further stated that, acting upon the
joint instructions of the I.I.C., Opposite Party No. 2 and her
husband, the Petitioner was forced to post-date the said cheques
to 30.10.2024. According to the Petitioner, the said cheques were
procured in a premeditated and coercive manner,
notwithstanding the absence of any legally enforceable debt or
subsisting liability.
(viii) It is stated that immediately after the occurrence of the aforesaid
incident, the Petitioner submitted a written report before the
Balangir Town Police Station on 24.09.2024. It is further alleged
that, owing to the inaction and failure of the local police
authorities to register the complaint, the Petitioner was
constrained to escalate the matter by submitting written
representations before the Superintendent of Police, Balangir, and
the Inspector General of Police, Sambalpur, on the very same day.
(ix) It is stated that, having received no redressal from the police
authorities despite approaching the competent authorities at
different levels, the Petitioner instituted a private complaint case,
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
which came to be registered as I.C.C. Case No. 25 of 2024, before
the Court of the learned S.D.J.M., Balangir, on 09.10.2024. Along
with the said complaint, the Petitioner also filed an application
seeking preservation and production of the CCTV footage of
Balangir Town Police Station and the office of the S.D.P.O.,
Balangir, relating to the date 24.09.2024.
(x) It is further stated that, in the aforesaid proceeding, the initial
statement of the Petitioner was recorded and two supporting
witnesses were examined in support of the allegations made in
the complaint petition. It is stated that, upon conducting an
enquiry under Section 225 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha
Sanhita, 2023, the learned Magistrate, vide order dated
19.02.2025, observed that a prima facie case was made out against
the accused persons; however, the Petitioner was directed to
obtain the requisite statutory sanction from the competent
authority before proceeding further against the then I.I.C.
concerned.
(xi) It is stated that, on 21.11.2024, the Petitioner received a legal
notice purportedly issued on behalf of Opposite Party No. 2,
wherein it was alleged that the Petitioner, being in urgent need of
funds, had on 28.03.2022 proposed to sell his landed property
situated at Larkipalli Mouza to Opposite Party No. 2 for a total
sale consideration of Rs.70,00,000/-. It was further alleged therein
that a sum of Rs.50,00,000/- had been paid in cash to the
Petitioner on 30.03.2022 without any contemporaneous
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
documentation, and that a subsequent agreement on stamp paper
was executed on 29.09.2024 acknowledging the said liability. The
notice further alleged that the Petitioner had issued two cheques
towards discharge of the aforesaid liability, which, upon
presentation, were dishonoured on 06.11.2024 and 07.11.2024
respectively with the endorsement “Account Stopped by
Drawer.”
(xii) It is further stated that the Petitioner submitted a detailed reply to
the aforesaid legal notice on 28.11.2024, wherein he categorically
denied the existence of any legally enforceable debt or liability
towards Opposite Party No. 2 and specifically narrated the
alleged coercive incident purported to have taken place inside the
chamber of the S.D.P.O., Balangir.
(xiii) It is stated that, instead of returning the cheques alleged to have
been obtained under coercion and duress, Opposite Party No. 2
proceeded to institute a criminal complaint on 23.12.2024, which
came to be registered as I.C.C. Case No. 66 of 2024 before the
Court of the learned S.D.J.M., Balangir. It is further alleged that,
in the said proceeding, the learned S.D.J.M., Balangir, by order
dated 23.12.2024, issued process and summons against the
Petitioner even prior to passing a formal order taking cognizance
of the alleged offence.
(xiv) Subsequently, upon noticing the aforesaid procedural aspect, the
learned Magistrate, vide order dated 07.03.2025, after considering
the interplay of Section 142(1)(a) of the Negotiable Instruments
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
Act, 1881, Section 5 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita,
2023, and Section 223(1) of the BNSS, 2023, formally took
cognizance of the offence punishable under Section 138 of the
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, and re-issued summons
against the Petitioner. Being aggrieved by the orders dated
23.12.2024 and 07.03.2025, the Petitioner has approached this
Hon’ble Court by invoking its inherent jurisdiction under Section
528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.
Being aggrieved by the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the Petitioner
has been constrained to approach this Court by filing the present
CRLMC Application seeking appropriate relief in accordance with law.
UBMISSIONS N EHALF F HE ETITIONER
II. S O B O T P :
3. The learned counsel for the Petitioner respectfully and earnestly made
the following submissions in support of his contentions:
(i) The Petitioner submits that the initial order dated 23.12.2024
passed by the learned Court below in I.C.C. Case No. 66 of 2024 is
ex facie contrary to law and procedurally unsustainable,
inasmuch as the learned Magistrate proceeded to issue process
and summons against the Petitioner without first recording any
formal order taking cognizance of the alleged offence. It is
contended that such issuance of process prior to taking
cognizance is unknown to law and vitiates the entire proceeding
at its threshold.
(ii) The Petitioner contends that the two cheques forming the
foundation of the prosecution, bearing Nos. 104201 and 104202,
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
were not issued voluntarily, but were allegedly obtained by way
of criminal intimidation, coercion, and unlawful custodial duress
exercised by the then IIC of Balangir Town Police Station, namely
Abani Sahoo, in active conspiracy with Opposite Party No. 2 and
her husband, within the locked chamber of the SDPO, Balangir. It
is submitted that the said instruments were executed and handed
over under an atmosphere of fear and compulsion, thereby
vitiating the essential legal requirement of free and voluntary
consent in the execution of negotiable instruments.
(iii) The Petitioner further contends that there exists no underlying
transaction, debt, or legally enforceable liability between the
Petitioner and Opposite Party No. 2. It is submitted that the
narrative sought to be projected regarding an alleged land sale
transaction in respect of land situated at Larkipalli Mouza is a
false and afterthought story, subsequently fabricated by Opposite
Party No. 2 only to lend a semblance of legitimacy to the cheques
which were allegedly obtained through coercion and extortion.
(iv) It is submitted that the assertion made by Opposite Party No. 2
regarding an alleged cash payment of Rs. 50 lakhs towards an
oral agreement for purchase of land is wholly untenable, vague,
and inherently improbable. It is further contended that the
alleged transaction is not supported by any material particulars
such as Khata number, Plot number, area of land, or other
essential identifying details, thereby rendering the said version
commercially implausible and legally unsustainable.
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
(v) It is further submitted that high-value transactions of such
magnitude, in ordinary course of commercial dealings, are
expected to be conducted through verifiable banking channels
such as RTGS, NEFT, or demand drafts, in accordance with
established financial norms and statutory compliance, and not
through unaccounted cash payments as alleged.
(vi) It is respectfully submitted that the Petitioner had instituted the
complaint case, i.e., I.C.C. Case No. 25 of 2024, on 09.10.2024,
wherein the entire sequence of events relating to alleged police
coercion, extortion, and forced execution of stamp paper on
24.09.2024 was specifically delineated, much prior to the
institution of I.C.C. Case No. 66 of 2024 by Opposite Party No. 2.
(vii) It is further submitted that in the said earlier proceeding, the
learned Magistrate, upon examination of witnesses and conduct
of enquiry, vide order dated 19.02.2025, observed that a prima
facie case was made out, and directed the Petitioner to obtain
requisite statutory sanction for prosecuting the then IIC, thereby
implicitly acknowledging the existence of a prima facie case
relating to the alleged acts of coercion and extortion involving the
police official and other accused persons.
(viii) It is argued that since the learned Magistrate had already, in the
Petitioner’s prior complaint case, vide order dated 19.02.2025,
found prima facie substance in the allegations of extortion, it was
legally impermissible and wholly inconsistent for the same Court
to subsequently, vide order dated 07.03.2025 in I.C.C. Case No. 66
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
of 2024, take cognizance against the Petitioner on the basis of the
very same cheques/instruments which are alleged to have been
obtained under coercion. It is submitted that the two
findings/approaches adopted by the learned Magistrate are
mutually irreconcilable and stand in direct contradiction to each
other, thereby rendering the latter order legally unsustainable.
(ix) It is further contended that the complaint instituted under Section
138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 is nothing but a
counterblast, maliciously initiated with an oblique motive to
wreak vengeance upon the Petitioner and to shield the Opposite
Party No. 2 from the consequences of the alleged acts of extortion
forming the subject matter of I.C.C. Case No. 25 of 2024. It is
submitted that the prosecution in I.C.C. Case No. 66 of 2024 is
founded on the very same instruments which are asserted to have
been procured under coercion, and therefore, in the event the
Petitioner succeeds in establishing the allegations of extortion in
the prior proceeding, the substratum of the present complaint
would stand vitiated, rendering the prosecution unsustainable in
law.
(x) It was urged that the learned Court below failed to record any
independent judicial satisfaction as to the existence of a prima
facie case against the Petitioner. It is contended that the order
dated 07.03.2025 is vitiated inasmuch as it merely engages in a
theoretical discussion on the interplay between Section 142(1)(a)
of the Negotiable Instruments Act, Section 5 of the BNSS, 2023,
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
and Section 223(1) of the BNSS, 2023, without undertaking any
meaningful or critical appreciation of the factual matrix of the
case.
(xi) It is further submitted that the learned Court failed to consider
the admitted enmity between the parties, the circumstances
surrounding the execution of the cheques, and the pendency of
the extortion-related proceedings, all of which were germane for
arriving at a reasoned judicial determination.
(xii) Therefore, it is submitted that the continuation of the criminal
proceeding in I.C.C. Case No. 66 of 2024 amounts to a clear abuse
of the process of law and the Court. It is contended that, in order
to secure the ends of justice and prevent miscarriage thereof, the
impugned orders dated 23.12.2024 and 07.03.2025 are liable to be
quashed and set aside by this Hon’ble Court in exercise of its
inherent jurisdiction under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik
Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.
UBMISSIONS N EHALF F HE PPOSITE ARTIES
III. S O B O T O P :
4. Per contra , the learned counsel for the Opposite Parties earnestly made
the submission that the present CRLMC is not maintainable before this
Court and deserves to be rejected in limine.
(i) The Opp. Party submits that while seeking to assail the
impugned orders dated 23.12.2024 and 07.03.2025 directing
issuance of process/summons, the Petitioner has, in substance,
raised only a singular question of law. It is contended that the
sole ground urged by the Petitioner is that the issuance of process
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
is vitiated for want of opportunity of hearing in terms of the first
proviso to Section 223(1) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha
Sanhita, 2023, and that no other substantial legal infirmity has
been demonstrated in respect of the impugned orders.
(ii) It is submitted that the brief facts giving rise to I.C.C. Case No. 66
of 2024 pertain to the dishonour of two cheques issued in favour
of Opposite Party No. 2 by the Petitioner, which were returned
unpaid with the endorsement “Payment Stopped by Drawer”. It
is further submitted that the Petitioner has neither disputed his
signatures nor the issuance of the said cheques in favour of
Opposite Party No. 2, thereby, at this stage, not disputing the
foundational factual substratum of the complaint.
(iii) The Opposite Party No. 2 further contends that the Petitioner’s
demand for a pre-cognizance hearing is wholly untenable in law
as well as on facts and circumstances of the case. It is submitted
that the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 is a special enactment
designed to ensure expeditious adjudication of cases relating to
dishonour of cheques and to maintain the credibility of
commercial transactions.
(iv) Accordingly, it is contended that general procedural
requirements, including the provisions relating to pre-cognizance
hearing under Section 223 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha
Sanhita, 2023, cannot be imported so as to dilute or delay the
special procedure contemplated under Section 138 of the
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.
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
(v) The Opp. Party further submits that the affording an opportunity
of hearing to the accused at the pre-cognizance stage or at the
stage of issuance of process would defeat and run counter to the
very object, purpose, and scheme of the Negotiable Instruments
Act, 1881. It is submitted that the exclusion of a pre-cognizance
hearing is consciously designed to obviate procedural delays and
ensure expeditious commencement of proceedings in cheque
dishonour cases.
(vi) It is further contended that the rights and contentions of the
accused remain fully protected in law and can be effectively
raised and adjudicated during the course of trial, and therefore,
no prejudice is caused by denial of a hearing at the initial stage of
issuance of process.
(vii) The Opposite Party No. 2 placed reliance upon a recent judgment
of the Supreme Court in the case of Sanjabij Tari v. Kishore S.
1
Borcar & Anr, wherein, it was held that the conducted a detailed
analysis of a large body of case law and categorically ruled that
an accused does not possess a legal right to be heard at the pre-
cognizance or process stage under these provisions.
(viii) The Opposite Party No. 2, therefore, submits that the present
petition filed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik
Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 is wholly untenable in law and deserves
to be dismissed in limine. It is, therefore, most respectfully
prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to dismiss the
1
(2025) OCR (SC) 874
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
petition and further direct the learned Trial Court to proceed
expeditiously with the trial in accordance with law.
IV. C OURT S R EASONING AND A NALYSIS :
’
5.
Heard Learned Counsel for parties and perused the documents placed
before this Court.
6. At the outset, it is to be noted that the scope of interference in exercise
of inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure is well settled.
7.
It is further a well-settled principle of law that while exercising its
inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, the High Court ought not to embark upon a meticulous
enquiry into the reliability, admissibility, or sufficiency of the evidence
collected during investigation. The scope of interference at such stage is
inherently limited and is required to be exercised sparingly, with great
caution, and only in exceptional circumstances where continuation of
the criminal proceeding would amount to an abuse of the process of
Court or where no offence is disclosed on the face of the record.
8. Moreover, it is a well settled principle of law that for an offence under
section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 to be constituted,
the cheque in question must have been issued in discharge, in whole or
in part, of a "legally enforceable debt or other liability."
9. The Hon’ble Supreme Cour in the case of Jugesh Sehgal v. Shamsher
2
Singh Gogi has explained the ingredients of Section 138 of NI Act
offence as follows:
2
(2009) 14 SCC 683
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
“13. It is manifest that to constitute an offence under Section
138 of the Act; the following ingredients are required to be
fulfilled:
(i) a person must have drawn a cheque on an account
maintained by him in a bank for payment of a certain amount
of money to another person from out of that account;
(ii) (ii) the cheque should have been issued for the
discharge, in whole or in part, of any debt or other liability;
(iii) that cheque has been presented to the bank within a
period of six months from the date on which it is drawn or
within the period of its validity whichever is earlier;
(iv) that cheque is returned by the bank unpaid, either
because of the amount of money standing to the credit of the
account is insufficient to honour the cheque or that it exceeds
the amount arranged to be paid from that account by an
agreement made with the bank;
(v) the payee or the holder in due course of the cheque
makes a demand for the payment of the said amount of money
by giving a notice in writing, to the drawer of the cheque,
within 15 days of the receipt of information by him from the
bank regarding the return of the cheque as unpaid;
(vi) the drawer of such cheque fails to make payment of
the said amount of money to the payee or the holder in due
course of the cheque within 15 days of the receipt of the said
notice.
Being cumulative, it is only when all the aforementioned
ingredients are satisfied that the person who had drawn the
cheque can be deemed to have committed an offence under
Section 138 of the Act.”
3
10.
The Apex court in the case of Bir Singh Vs Mukesh Kumar has
categorically held that:
“ 40. Even a blank cheque leaf, voluntarily signed and handed
over by the accused, which is towards some payment, would
attract presumption under Section 139 of the Negotiable
3
(2019)4 SCC 197
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
Instruments Act, in the absence of any cogent evidence to
show that the cheque was not issued in discharge of a debt.”
11. Herein the negotiable instrument is allegedly extracted under coercion,
duress, or undue influence particularly within the intimidating
confines of a police station the presumption of a legally enforceable
debt is inherently vitiated. Further the coordinate Court having already
found prima facie substance in the Petitioner’s allegations regarding
the forcible extraction of the very same cheques by the police official
inside a police station, allowing the prosecution under Section 138 of
the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 to proceed would amount to
weaponizing the judicial process. The statutory presumptions under
the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 cannot be mechanically applied
to legitimize instruments procured through alleged custodial
intimidation.
12. In the present case, the Petitioner has approached this Hon’ble Court
seeking quashing of the criminal proceeding and has challenged the
order dated 23.12.2024 passed by the learned S.D.J.M., Balangir.
13.
The Court also deems it appropriate to refer to the judgment of the
Supreme Court in the case of in Kapil Agarwal v. Sanjay Sharma &
4
Ors, , wherein it has been held that:
“The inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and/or
under Article 226 of the Constitution is designed to achieve
the salutary purpose that criminal proceedings ought not to be
permitted to degenerate into a weapon of harassment. When
the Court is satisfied that criminal proceedings amount to an
abuse of the process of law or that it amounts to bringing
4
AIR 2021 SC 1241
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
pressure upon the accused, in the exercise of inherent powers,
such proceedings can be quashed ”
14.
In the case at hand, the institution of I.C.C. Case No. 66 of 2024 appears
to be a clear counterblast to the Petitioner's prior complaint of extortion
in I.C.C. Case No. 25 of 2024. The fact that a coordinate Court has
already found a prima facie case regarding the forcible extraction of the
very same cheques inside a police station heavily underscores the
malicious nature of the present prosecution.
15.
This Court is of the view that the two cheques forming the foundation
of the prosecution were not issued voluntarily, but were allegedly
obtained by way of criminal intimidation, coercion, and unlawful
custodial duress, said to have been exercised by the Inspector-in-
Charge.
16.
Thereafter, it is alleged that within the locked chamber of the S.D.P.O.,
Balangir, the said instruments were executed and handed over under
an atmosphere of fear, intimidation, and compulsion. It is submitted
that such circumstances, if established, would vitiate the essential legal
requirement of free and voluntary consent in the execution of
negotiable instruments under the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.
17.
Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, and
upon a careful and due appreciation of the materials available on
record, this Court is of the considered opinion that the present Petition
deserves to be allowed. Accordingly, the Petition stands allowed in the
interest of justice.
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
V. C ONCLUSION :
18.
In view of the foregoing analysis, and upon an anxious, careful, and
comprehensive consideration of the material facts, records, and
circumstances attendant to the present case, this Court is of the
considered opinion that the allegations levelled against the Petitioner,
even if taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety, do not
prima facie constitute the offence alleged.
19. Accordingly, the CRLMC stands allowed.
20.
Interim order, if any, passed earlier stands vacated.
(Dr. Sanjeeb K Panigrahi)
Judge
Orissa High Court, Cuttack,
nd
Dated 22 May, 2026
Page 18