CRLMC/138/2025 of PITAMBAR MOHALIK Vs STATE OF ODISHA on 8 September 2026

ORDER

08.09.2026 Order No.

09.

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 filed by the accused- Petitioner under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. with a prayer for quashing of the entire criminal proceeding pending against them for more than several decades.

4. Learned counsel for the Petitioner, at the outset, contended that the Petitioner who is an accused in Bhadrak P.S. Case No.49 of 1999 which was registered for alleged commission of offence punishable under Sections 147, 148, 458, 436, 435, 294, 427, 337, 379, 506, 149 of I.P.C. read with section 7 of the CRLA Act which corresponds to G.R. Case No.451 of 1999 and now pending before the learned S.D.J.M., Bhadrak.

5. Learned counsel for the Petitioner, at the outset, contended that the criminal proceeding which is being sought to be quashed in the present application was initiated in the year 1999 i.e. more than 25 years ago for alleged commission of offence as has been indicated hereinabove. The F.I.R. in that case was registered at Bhadrak Town P.S. on the basis of a complaint lodged by the Principal Bhadrak College, Bhadrak and the alleged incidents of the agitation of the students due to suicidal death of a student namely, Bidyadhar Pradhan, who was studying in the college as a +3 final year, Arts student. In the complaint it has been mentioned that some students secretly instigated and mobilised other students of the college to raise agitation against the college authorities and, in the process, they took law and order into their hands.

6. In course of his argument, learned counsel for the Petitioner further contended that on the basis of the aforesaid allegation, the learned court below has taken cognizance on 11.1.2002 at Annexure-3. He further submitted that although cognizance has been taken more than two decades ago the trial has not yet commenced. Learned counsel for the Petitioner further referred to order dated 07.05.2002 passed in CRLMC No.1439 of 2002 by a bench of this Court and another order dated 05.09.2003 passed in CRLMC No.1893 of 2003 by a different bench of this Court. On perusal of the both the orders, it appears that the respective benches have quashed the criminal proceeding as against the Petitioner in those applications. Accordingly, the proceeding as against such Petitioners in G.R. Case No.451 of 1999 has been dropped to an end. Referring to the aforesaid two orders passed in respect of two similarly situated students, learned counsel for the Petitioner contended that the present Petitioner also stands in a similar footing with the abovenoted two persons. Accordingly, it was prayed before this Court that the order taking cognizance as well as the criminal proceeding pending against the present Petitioner for more than two and half decades be quashed.

7. Learned counsel for the State, on the other hand, submitted that he has no instruction in the matter. Further, he did not dispute the fact that the orders relied upon by the Petitioner was passed in connection with two co-accused persons in respect of the self-same occurrence and the criminal case. In such backdrop, learned counsel for the State contended that he will have no objection in the event this Court passes any order to secure the ends of justice.

8. On perusal of order sheet, it appears that the several adjournments were granted to the learned counsel for the State to examine the matter. However, learned counsel for the State has failed to obtain any specific instruction. This Court examine the orders relied upon by the Petitioner at Flag-A of the brief passed in respect of the co-accused persons filed before this Court. On a critical analysis of the background of those two cases, this Court found that they are identical to the one involved in the present case. The Petitioner in present case was also student at the relevant point of time and stands in a similar footing with the Petitioners in the abovenoted two cases.

9. Taking into consideration the factual background of the present case, the nature of the allegation and further keeping in view the order passed in respect of the co-accused persons, this Court is of the view that there is no dispute that the present Petitioner also stands in a similar footing with the co-accused persons. Further, taking note of the fact that although more than two and half decades have elapsed, the trial has not progressed substantially, this Court is of the considered view that further continuance of the present proceeding would not only be an abuse of the process of law, but also cause serious prejudice to the Petitioner as the case is pending for trial for more than two and half decades. In the aforesaid factual backdrop, this Court is inclined to exercise its inherent power under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. and, accordingly, the present criminal proceeding as well as the order taking cognizance against the present Petitioner are hereby quashed.

10. Accordingly, the CRLMC stands allowed.

(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