Remanded

Prafulla Ku.Rout v. State of Odisha

Orissa HC16 Sept 2021CRLMC/1819/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This High Court permitted a limited remand instead of quashing the order of cognizance under Section 138 NI Act. The court observed that while the delay warrants setting aside, the lower court’s failure to point out the delay deprived the petitioner of an opportunity to explain. The matter was remitted to the trial court to give the petitioner a chance to pray for condonation of delay.

What did the court decide?

Matter remitted to the trial court to give the petitioner a chance to make a prayer for condonation of delay within a month; thereafter the court shall decide the question of cognizance.

Prafulla Ku.Rout Vs State of Odisha — Cheque Dishonour | Orissa HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

¶2

CRLMC No.1819 of 2018

¶3

Prafulla Kumar Rout

¶4

…. Petitioner

¶5

-versus-

¶6

State of Odisha & another

¶7

…. Opposite Parties

¶8

CORAM:

¶9

THE JUSTICE S.PUJAHARI

ORDER

Order No.

16.09.2021

This matter is taken up through Hybrid mode.

¶15

Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner and learned counsel for the Opposite Party No.2.

¶16

This application under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. has been filed by the Petitioner with a prayer to quash the order dated 7.4.2018 passed by the learned S.D.J.M., Bhubaneswar in ICC Case No.690 of 2018 wherein learned S.D.J.M has taken cognizance of the offence under Section 138 of the N.I Act against the Petitioner.

¶17

The contention of the learned counsel for the Petitioner

¶18

is that cognizance having taken on a second notice and the

¶19

Page 1 of 3

¶20

// 2 //

¶21

same is barred by limitation as such order of cognizance be quashed.

¶22

During the course of argument, learned counsel for the Opposite Party No.2 drawing notice to the Court to the law laid down by the apex Court in the case of Birendra Prasad Sah v. The State of Bihar, reported in 2019 (7) SCC 273 submits that the impugned order cannot be found fault with.

¶23

However, the ratio laid down in the case of Birendra Prasad Sah (supra) does not support the contention of the learned counsel for the Opposite Party No.2-Complainant. Therefore, there being a delay and the court having without condoning the delay, having taken cognizance, the impugned order of the cognizance cannot be sustained.

¶24

But, it being submitted by the Complainant that the

¶25

court having not pointed out the delay, the opposite party was deprived of explaining the delay in proper manner and as such, the order impugned need not be interfered with.

¶26

It being well settled that the act of the court should prejudice none and no one should take advantage of the mistake of the court, while setting aside the impugned order, this Court

Page 2 of 3

// 3 //

PKS

remits the matter back to the trial court to give a chance to the Petitioner to make a prayer for codnonation of delay within a month hence. If such a petition is made, the court shall address the same in accordance with law giving a chance to the Opposite Party No.2 to oppose such prayer, in its own merit and then decide the question of cognizance in the manner

¶31

known to law.

¶32

With the aforesaid order, this CRLMC stands disposed
of.
10. Urgent certified copy of this order be granted on proper
application.
(S. Pujahari)
Judge

¶33

Page 3 of 3

Prafulla Ku.Rout v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Prafulla Ku.Rout v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rajendra Nayak Vs State of Odisha

Sudhansu Sekhar Swain Vs State of Odisha

Sudhir Kumar Padhi Vs State of Odisha

Swayam Sharma @ Soyam Sharma Vs State of Odisha

Prasanta Kumar Patra Vs State of Odisha

Chhabindra Sethi Vs State of Odisha