WP(C)/25975/2026 of PRAFULLA KUMAR MISHRA Vs STATE OF ODISHA on 19 August 2026

ORDER

19.8.2026 Order No.

01.

1. Heard Mr. C.R. Sahu, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. S.N. Nayak, learned ASC for State - opposite parties.

2. The petitioner was the complainant in 1CC Case No.27 of 2025 before the Court of learned SDJM(P), Rourkela. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that subsequently said complaint case has been quashed by this court vide judgement dated 31st March, 2026 passed in CRLMC No.537 of 2026 (Annexure-4). The petitioner now alleges that the power of attorney submitted on behalf of the accused by one Mukesh Kumar as per Annexure-2, is fraudulent one and not genuine document. The petitioner accordingly prays not to give effect to the judgment dated 31st March, 2026 of this court passed in CRLMC No.537 of 2026 and further to restore the proceeding in 1CC Case No.27 of 2025.

3. This Court (Co-Ordinate Bench) in judgment dated 31st March, 2026 while quashing the proceeding in 1CC Case No.27 of 2025, has observed as follows:-

“xxxxxx xxxxxxx xxxxxxx

31. Accordingly, this petition succeeds. The impugned complaint, being I.C.C. Case No.27 of 2025 pending before the learned S.D.J.M., Panposh, Rourkela, is hereby quashed. The summoning order dated 27th January, 2026 issued against the petitioners stands set aside. The petitioners are discharged from any obligation to appear or participate in any further proceedings in the said case.

32. Before parting, this Court cannot allow the conduct of the opposite party to pass without comment. Here is a litigant who has, for more than twenty three years, pursued criminal proceedings over a mobile handset worth Rs.501. Four complaints. Two quashing orders. Two Special Leave Petitions dismissed by the Supreme Court. A criminal revision dismissed. A Section 319 application rejected and that rejection upheld. Yet he returns, files another complaint, and omits any reference to this entire history before the court below. He was aware of each of these orders. He was present when they were passed. The omission was deliberate. The intention was to secure issuance of process afresh, despite knowing that a full disclosure would have foreclosed that proceedings. This is, without a doubt, a calculated misuse of the process of the court. The criminal law cannot be set in motion repeatedly against the same persons on the same allegations in the hope that persistence will yield a different result. The opposite party has abused the process of this Court, knowingly and repeatedly.

33. This Court must also record its concern with the manner in which the learned S.D.J.M., Panposh, Rourkela, dealt with the complaint. The allegations, on their own showing, relate to a transaction more than two decades old. That circumstance alone ought to have prompted closer scrutiny. A simple inquiry as to whether any earlier proceedings was instituted would have revealed the full history. No such inquiry appears to have been made. Summons was issued to an unrelated individual and to a company with no apparent connection to the transaction, on the basis of a complaint which reiterates allegations already considered and rejected by this Court and by the Supreme Court. Issuance of summons is not a routine step. It is a judicial act carrying serious consequences, the Magistrate is required to apply his mind before setting the criminal law in motion, particularly where the complaint itself bears indications of being part of a series of proceedings. That level of scrutiny is not evident in the present case.

34. Mere quashing of the impugned proceedings, in the peculiar facts of the case, would not subserve the ends of justice. The Opposite Party has repeatedly set the criminal law in motion on the same set of allegations, compelling the Petitioners to face four successive rounds of litigation. Such a conduct has not only subjected the Petitioners to unwarranted harassment but has also resulted in a substantial waste of precious judicial time of this Court as well as the courts below.

35. This Court records its strong disapproval of the aforesaid conduct of the opposite party. Though it would have been justified in imposing exemplary costs, this Court, taking into account the stated financial condition of the Opposite Party, who is a practicing lawyer before this Court, this Court, though justified in imposing exemplary costs, is exercising restraint. However, such indulgence shall not be construed as condonation of the conduct in question. This Court makes it clear that any repetition of such abuse of the process of law shall invite stringent and exemplary consequences. Nevertheless, in order to mark its disapprobation and to serve as a caution against such misuse of judicial process, a cost of Rs.1000/- (Rupees One Thousand only) is imposed upon the Opposite Party which shall be deposited with the Juvenile Justice Fund (Regular Savings Bank Account No.45064568124, CIF No.92398188325, IFSC Code-SBIN0000059), Odisha State Legal Services Authority within a period of four weeks from today.

36. Accordingly, the present CRLMC stands disposed of being allowed.”

4. In view of aforesaid finding of this court in judgment dated 31st March, 2026, such prayer made by the petitioner at present stage is found misconceived and mischievous. Moreover, the petitioner does not show any prima facie material to reveal the alleged power of attorney under Annexure-2 as not genuine.

5. Accordingly the writ petition is dismissed.

( B.P. Routray) Judge M.K.Panda