Orissa High Court
CRLMC/2882/2026 of PARIKHITA BHOI Vs STATE OF ODISHA on 9 September 2026
of 4. IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK CRLMC No.2882 of 2026 CNR No. ODHC010637182026 Parikhita Bhoi ..... Petitioner Represented by Adv. - Subash Chandra Puspalaka -versus- State Of Odisha & Anr. ..... Opp. Parties Represented by Adv. – D.K. Sahoo, A.G.A. CORAM: THE HON’BLE
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
CRLMC No.2882 of 2026
CNR No. ODHC010637182026
Parikhita Bhoi
.....
Petitioner
Represented by Adv. -
Subash Chandra
Puspalaka
-versus-
State Of Odisha & Anr.
.....
Opp. Parties
Represented by Adv. –
D.K. Sahoo, A.G.A.
CORAM:
THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR
MOHAPATRA
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORDER
09.09.2026 Order No.
01.
1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Mode.
2. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner as well as learned counsel for the State. Perused the CRLMC application as well as the prayer made therein.
3. By filing the present application under Section 528 of the BNSS, the accused-Petitioner in Kegaon PS Case No.68, dated 11.4.2025, which corresponds to CT Case No.223 of 2025, now pending in the file of learned SDJM, Dharamgarh has approached this Court by filing the present application with a prayer for quashing of entire criminal proceeding pending in the abovenoted criminal case.
4. Learned counsel for the Petitioner, at the outset, contended that an FIR was lodged by one Antaryami Kanhar, DWO, Kalahandi, dated 11.04.2025, by the IIC, Kegaon PS, on the allegation of the Petitioner has submitted a fake caste certificate and, accordingly, a case was registered for commission of offences punishable under Section 420, 465, 468, 471 of IPC. Such allegation is based on the finding of the State Level Scrutiny Committee (Southern Division), Berhampur. On the basis of the aforesaid FIR, the investigation had commenced in the present case though no final charge sheet has been filed.
5. Learned counsel for the Petitioner, at this juncture, contended before this Court that the order passed by the State Level Scrutiny Committee (Southern Division), Berhampur in Case No.14 of 2023 was the subject matter of challenge before this Court in WP(C) No.8919 of 2025. He further submitted that this Court has been pleased to quash the aforesaid vide order dated 02.04.2025 and the matter has been remitted back to the State Level Scrutiny Committee for re-examination of the issue involved in the case. As such, learned counsel for the Petitioner contended that the foundation of the present criminal case has been demolished by the order of this Court whereby the impugned order of the State Level Scrutiny Committee has been set aside and the matter has been remanded back for consideration. In such view of the matter, learned counsel for the Petitioner contended that there is no foundation for sustaining the present criminal proceeding against the present Petitioner under the alleged sections. Accordingly, it was prayed that the entire criminal proceeding be quashed as the further continuance of such proceeding would be an abuse of process of law.
6. Learned Additional Government Advocate, on the other hand, contended that although the decision taken by the SLSC,
Southern Division, Berhampur has been set aside by this Court, however, the matter has been remanded back to the SLSC for reconsideration. In such view of the matter, learned Additional Government Advocate contended that it cannot be presumed that the entire foundation for the present criminal proceeding has vanished and that there are ample materials to proceed against the present Petitioner in the criminal case still remains. In such view of the matter, learned Additional Government Advocate contended that the prayer made in the present application is unsustainable in law and, as such, the application filed by the Petitioner with a prayer for quashing of the entire criminal proceeding is liable to be rejected at the threshold.
7. Having regard to the submissions made by learned counsels appearing for both sides, on a careful examination of the background facts as well as the documents annexed to the present application, further taking note of the fact that the allegation on the basis of which the present criminal proceeding has been initiated was the subject matter of dispute in WPC No.8919 of 2025 and this Court vide its order dated 02.04.2025 has set aside the finding of the SLSC and the matter has been remanded back to the SLSC for consideration in accordance with law, this Court is of the considered view that unless the SLSC takes a final decision in the matter, it cannot be presumed that the Petitioner has committed any crime. As such, there is no foundation to proceed against the Petitioner under the alleged sections. In such view of the matter, this Court has no hesitation in coming to a conclusion that the further continuance of the present criminal proceeding would be an abuse of process of law, unless there is a specific finding by the statutory authority with regard to the violation of law by the
Petitioner. Accordingly, this Court has no hesitation to quash the entire criminal proceeding and, accordingly, the same is hereby quashed. Further, liberty is granted to the informant to proceed against the Petitioner by filing a fresh complaint against the Petitioner in the event the SLSC comes to a conclusion that the Petitioner had in fact produced a fake certificate before the authority, if the informant so advised.
8. Accordingly, the CRLMC application stands allowed. .
( A.K. Mohapatra )
Judge
Anil
Digitally Signed Signed by: ANIL KUMAR SAHOO Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa Date: 11-Sep-2026 14:47:45 Signature Not Verified