CRLMC/2788/2026 of BHASKAR PANIGRAHI Vs CHAMPABATI PANDA on 17 August 2026

ORDER

17.08.2026 Order No.

01.

1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid mode.

2. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner. 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 in Criminal Revision No.05 of 2024, which was disposed of by the learned Sessions Judge, Balasore vide order date 29.07.2026, thereby setting aside the order passed by the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Balasore in Misc. Case No.111 of 2023 initiated under Section 133 of the Cr.P.C., the Petitioner has approached this Court by filing the present application.

4. Learned counsel for the Petitioner, at the outset, contended that there exists a civil dispute between the Petitioner and the private Opposite Party. The factual background of the case leading to the filing of the present application, in short, is that Suit Plot Nos.173, 177, 181 & 192 under Kahta No.18 were recorded in the name of

Petitioner and other marfatdars of Sri Raghunathjew of Mouza- Nutipatna. When the possession of the Petitioner and other marfatdars was threaten, the Petitioner filed C.S. No.1316 of 2022 before the learned Civil Judge, (Sr. Division), Balasore for declaration of right title in interest in respect of A schedule land (plot No.181 & 192) and partition in respect of B schedule land (Plot No.173, 177 and other plots).

5. Initially the learned trial court vide order dated 07.02.2023 passed an order of injunction against the Opposite Party in I.A. No.309 of 2022, which arises out of the abovenoted suit and, as per order dated 07.02.2023, the defendant-Opposite Party was restrained from entering upon the suit land.

6. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order of injunction passed by the learned trial court, the Defendant No.2 approached the learned District Judge, Balasore by filing F.A.O. No.20 of 2023. The learned 1st Appellate Court, while disposing of the F.AO. No.20 of 2023, modified the original order of injunction and instead directed both the parties to maintain status quo over the suit scheduled land. Such order passed in the abovenoted F.A.O has attained finality as the same was not challenged any further by either side.

7. While this was the position, the sole Opposite Party-Defendant No.2 approached the learned S.D.M., Balasore by filing an application under Section 133 of the Cr.P.C., on 10.11.2023. Allegedly supressing material facts in the order passed by the 1st Appellate Court on the injunction application. In the application under Section 133 Cr.P.C., the sole Opposite Party had prayed for eviction of the Petitioner from the suit schedule land. The said application was registered as criminal Misc. Case No.111 of 2023, and later allowed by the learned S.D.M., Balasore with a direction to the Petitioner to remove the construction.

8. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order of the learned S.D.M., Balasore, the Petitioner approached the learned District Judge Balasore, by filing Criminal Revision No.05 of 2023 challenging the order under Annexure-5. The learned District Judge, Balasore, while allowing the revision and setting aside the order under Section 5 again remitted the case back to the learned S.D.M., Balasore for case consideration of the Misc. Case No.111 of 2023. Being aggrieved by such order at Annexure-8, passed in the abovenoted Criminal Revision, the Petitioner has approached this Court by filing the present application under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C.

9. Learned counsel for the Petitioner, at the outset, contended that there exists a civil dispute between the parties which is pending before the learned Civil Court for final adjudication. He further contended that on the basis of the records, the title was clearly recorded in favour of the Petitioner. Therefore, there is no dispute with regard to the title of the present Petitioner. Accordingly, learned counsel for the Petitioner took a stand that the application under Section 133 of Cr.P.C. is not maintainable. He further contended that the learned S.D.M., Balasore erroneously entertained such application without examining the question of the maintainability. Similarly, the learned Revisional Court also remitted the matter back without considering the question of maintainability of the application under Section 133 of the Cr.P.C.

10. On a careful examination of the submissions made by the learned counsel for the Petitioner as well as on a close scrutiny of the impugned orders as well as the documents on record, this Court observes that the Petitioner by filing the present application under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C., challenges the entire proceeding involved in the Misc. Case No.111 of 2023 initiated under Section 133 of the Cr.P.C. While assailing the aforesaid proceeding, the learned counsel for the Petitioner contended that such proceeding is not maintainable at the instance of the sole Opposite Party as the dispute is pending before the learned Civil Court for declaration of the right, title and interest in respect of the self-same properties and an injunction order has been passed, which was later on modified by the Revisional Court and the parties have been directed to maintain status quo over the suit scheduled land.

11. In such view of the matter, learned counsel for the Petitioner contended that if any order is passed by the learned S.D.M. disturbing either the possession or the title of same, then if would violate the order passed by the learned Civil Court which is the competent forum to adjudicate the dispute with regard to the title and possession over the suit scheduled land.

12. This Court, on a careful analysis of the factual background of the present case and upon a consideration of the submissions made by the learned counsel for the Petitioner observes that the issue of maintainability has not been raised before the learned S.D.M., Balasore in Criminal Misc. Case No.111 of 2023. Moreover, the law is fairly well settled that the issue of maintainability of an application is to be raised before the forum where the dispute is pending. Since the issue has not been raised before the learned S.D.M., Balasore, the same has not been considered while passing the impugned orders. On perusal of the record, it appears that the learned Revisional Court has already set aside the previous order and remanded the matter back to the learned S.D.M., Balasore for fresh consideration of the dispute. Accordingly, while disposing of the present Section 482 Cr.P.C. application, this Court modifies the order dated 29.07.2026, at Annexure-8, passed in Revision No.05 of 2024 by the learned Sessions Judge, Balasore to the extent that the Petitioner is granted liberty to raise issue of maintainability of the application under Section 133 Cr.P.C before the learned S.D.M., Balasore during the pendency of the Civil Suit in respect of the self-same land. In the event, any such issue is raised before the learned S.D.M., Balasore, the learned S.D.M., Balasore shall do well to decide the issue of maintainability first by the providing sufficient opportunity to both sides and then proceeding with the issue. Accordingly, the Petitioner is directed to appear before the learned S.D.M., Balasore on 2nd September, 2026 along with a copy of today’s order. In such eventuality, the learned S.D.M., Balasore, after providing opportunity to both sides, shall make every endeavour to decide the issue of maintainability within a period of six weeks.

13. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the CRLMC stands disposed of.

Rubi

(Aditya Kumar Mohapatra)

Judge

Digitally Signed Signed by: RUBI BEHERA Reason: Authentication Location: OHC Date: 19-Aug-2026 11:44:49 Signature Not Verified