Orissa High Court
CRLMC/2729/2026 of RAJENDRA CHOUDHURY Vs STATE OF ODISHA on 8 September 2026
of 3. IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK CRLMC No.2729 of 2026 CNR No. ODHC010505762026 Rajendra Choudhury ..... Petitioner Represented by Adv. - Arun Kumar Behera -versus- State of Odisha & Anr. ..... Opposite Parties Represented by Adv. - Smt. S.Nayak, A.S.C. CORAM: THE HON’BLE MR.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
CRLMC No.2729 of 2026
CNR No. ODHC010505762026
Rajendra Choudhury
.....
Petitioner
Represented by Adv. -
Arun Kumar Behera
-versus-
State of Odisha & Anr.
.....
Opposite Parties
Represented by Adv. -
Smt. S.Nayak, A.S.C.
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
08.09.2026 Order No.
01.
1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid mode.
2. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner as well as the learned counsel for the State. Perused the CRLMC application as well as the prayer made therein.
3. By filing the present application under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C., the Petitioner has approached this Court with a prayer for quashing on the ground of delay.
4. Learned counsel for the Petitioner, at the outset, contended that the F.I.R. in the present case was lodged on 24.08.2015 before the Sadar P.S. alleging commission of an offence punishable under Sections 447, 294, 354-B, 506 & 34 of I.P.C. After registration of the F.I.R. the investigation was commenced and in the meantime the charge sheet has been filed in the year 2015. The aforesaid Sadar P.S. Case corresponds to C.T. No.1668 of 2015 and the same is stated to be pending before the learned J.M.F.C.(C), Balasore. In course of his argument, learned counsel for the Petitioner submitted that although the charge sheet was filed in the year 2015, despite expiry of eleven years in the meantime, the trial has not yet commenced.
5. Learned counsel for the State, on the other hand, objected to the prayer made in the present application. She further contended that there are many reasons for which the trial could not be concluded expeditiously. He further contended that in the event this Court directs the learned trial court for early conclusion of the trial the prosecution will provide all assistance to the learned trial court for early conclusion of the trial in the present case. In such view of the matter, learned counsel for the State contended that the petition being devoid of merit, is liable to be dismissed.
6. Having regard to the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties, on a careful examination of the background facts, further taking note of the fact that the charge sheet was filed in the year 2015 and in the meantime time eleven years have elapsed, this Court deems it proper to dispose of the present application by directing the learned trial court to make every endeavour to expedite the trial and conclude the same as expeditiously as possible, preferably within period of six months. Parties are directed to cooperate with the learned
trial court and they shall not take any unnecessary adjournments.
7. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the CRLMC stands disposed of.
(Aditya Kumar Mohapatra)
Judge
Rubi
Digitally Signed Signed by: RUBI BEHERA Reason: Authentication Location: OHC Date: 10-Sep-2026 17:43:48 Signature Not Verified