CRLMC/2484/2026 of SIKAKA LADO@LADA SIKAKA Vs STATE OF ODISHA on 18 August 2026

ORDER

18.08.2026 Order No.

01.

1. This matter is taken up through virtual mode.

2. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner as well as the learned counsel for the State-Opposite Party. Perused the CRLMC application as well as the documents annexed thereto.

3. By filing the present application under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., the Accused Petitioner in C.T. No.349 of 2017 pending in the file of learned J.M.F.C., Lanjigarh, which corresponds to Lanjigarh P.S. Case No.28 dated 26.04.2017 was registered for commission of offences under Sections 143/ 147 /148/ 183/ 341/ 120B/ 149 of I.P.C. read with Section 7 of Criminal Law (2nd Amendment) Act, 1983, has approached this Court with a prayer for quashing of the entire criminal proceeding against him.

4. Learned counsel for the Petitioner, at the outset, contended that initially the F.I.R. was lodged on 26.04.2017 by one Rajeev Ranjan, Security Head, Vedanta Ltd., Lanjigarh in Lanjigarh Police Station alleging violation of law and order situation on protest made by the local public. On the basis of such information, Lanjigarh P.S. Case was registered indicating the name of the present Petitioner along with five others. On the basis of such F.I.R., the investigation has started. Learned counsel for the Petitioner, at this juncture, contended that the Petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case. He further submitted that there is no evidence against the present Petitioner. Further, referring to the documents filed along with the application, the learned counsel for the Petitioner contended that the Investigating Officer has not followed the mandatory procedure of Section 41-A of Cr.P.C. He further contended that without issuing notice to the Petitioner, an N.B.W. was issued in the year 2020, which was not within the knowledge of the present Petitioner. Subsequently, on the request of the police, process has been issued under Sections 82 & 83 of the Cr.P.C. at Annexure-5 and when a copy of the notice was affixed to the wall of the Petitioner’s house, the Petitioner came to learn about the pendency of the present criminal proceeding. Accordingly, he was approached this Court with a prayer for quashing of the entire criminal proceeding. In course of his argument, learned counsel for the Petitioner further contended that the Petitioner belongs to the tribal community and that he has been falsely implicated in this case at the instance of the Informant. In such view of the matter, learned counsel for the Petitioner contended that the further continuance of the present proceeding would be an abuse of process of law. Accordingly, he was prayed that the entire criminal proceeding is liable to the quashed.

5. Learned counsel for the State, on the other hand, objected to the prayer made in the present application. He further submitted that the learned trial court has not committed any illegality in issuing processes as against the present Petitioner. While elaborating his stand, learned counsel for the State contended that after the case was registered by naming the present Petitioner in the F.I.R., the Petitioner did not appear before the police. He further submitted that despite their best effect, the Petitioner could not be arrested. As a result of which, the learned trial court issued N.B.W. against the present Petitioner. Since the N.B.W. was not executed for a period of five years, on the request of the police, the process has been issued under Sections 82 & 83 of Cr.P.C. In such view of the matter, learned counsel for the State contended that the learned trial court has not committed any illegality issuing process against the present Petitioner and that there exists ample materials against the present to indicate his involvement in the alleged crime. Accordingly, it was prayed that the application is devoid of merit deserves to be dismissed at the threshold.

6. Having heard the learned counsels appearing for both sides and on a careful examination of the materials on record, so also taking into consideration the fact that the case is of the year 2017 and that the Petitioner belongs to the tribal community, further taking note of the nature of allegation made in the F.I.R. and the fact that the case is pending since long, this Court is inclined to provide another opportunity to the Petitioner. Accordingly, the order dated 18.03.2020 issuing N.B.W. against the present Petitioner as well as the consequential order dated 15.05.2026 issuing process against the present Petitioner under Section 82 & 83 of Cr.P.C., at Annexure-3, is hereby quashed. The Petitioner is directed to surrender before the court in seisin over the matter within three weeks from today and move an application for bail. In the event any such application is filed, the learned trial court shall consider and dispose of such bail application on the same day by maintaining the principles of parity, if applicable. While considering the bail application of the Petitioner, learned trial court shall take into consideration the fact that the case is pending since 2017 and that the Petitioner belongs to tribal community, accordingly, pass necessary orders therein. It is further directed that the Case Diary as well as relevant materials be placed before the court concerned on the date of surrender of the Petitioner for consideration of bail application of the Petitioner.

7. With the aforesaid observation and direction, the CRLMC stands disposed of.

( A.K. Mohapatra )

Judge

Debasis

Digitally Signed Signed by: DEBASIS AECH Designation: SECRETARY Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT Date: 20-Aug-2026 19:54:41 Signature Not Verified