Dismissed

Dilip Kumar Malik@Mallick v. State of Odisha

Orissa HC26 Aug 2021CRLMC/485/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single judge of the High Court of Orissa dismissed a criminal miscellaneous appeal seeking quashment of an order of cognizance. The court held prima facie material existed, exercising jurisdiction but stayed N.B.W.(A) execution against one petitioner contingent on surrender.

What did the court decide?

Application for quashment dismissed; liberty to raise contentions at charge-framing; N.B.W.(A) execution against Petitioner No. 1 stayed until surrender.

Dilip Kumar Malik@Mallick Vs State of Odisha — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Orissa HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

¶2

CRLMC No.485 of 2020

¶3

Dilip Kumar Malik @ Mallick & another

¶4

…. Petitioners

¶5

-versus-

¶6

State of Odisha

¶7

…. Opposite Party

¶8

CORAM: JUSTICE S.PUJAHARI

ORDER

26.08.2021

Order No.

This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.

¶14

Heard, the learned counsel for the Petitioners and the learned counsel for the State.

¶15

This application under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. has been filed by the Petitioners with a prayer to quash the order dated 1.2.2019 passed by the learned J.M.F.C., Pattamundai in G.R. Case No.36 of 2017 taking cognizance for the alleged offences under Sections 447, 341, 294, 323, 353, 307 & 506 read with Section 34 of I.P.C.

¶16

Considering the facts and submissions made, I am not inclined to interfere with the order of cognizance, inasmuch as, prima facie material is available against the Petitioners to proceed in this case.

¶17

Page 1 of 3

¶18

// 2 //

¶19

However, liberty is given to the Petitioners to raise such contentions at the time of framing of charge. Needless to say that when contention is raised that there is no material to proceed against the Petitioners at the time of framing of charge, the court concerned without being influenced by the order of this Court shall address such contention vis-à-vis the materials on record and pass necessary order.

¶20

It is stated by the learned counsel for the Petitioners that the Petitioners have been released on pre-arrest bail by this Court vide order dated 1.5.2018 in ABLAPL No.6480 of 2017 but, the N.B.W.(A) has been issued against them and the same has also been executed against Petitioner No.2.

¶21

If that be so, it is open to the Petitioner No.1-Dillip Kumar Mallick to surrender before the Court in seisin over the matter with promptitude and both the Petitioners may make a motion for bail. In that event, the Court in seisin over the matter shall allow them to go on bail on such terms and conditions as it may deem just and proper including the conditions that they shall cooperate with the trial. However, till Petitioner No.1Dillip Kumar Mallick surrenders, the execution of N.B.W.(A) against him shall remain stayed.

¶22

With the aforesaid order, this CRLMC is disposed of. Consequently, the I.A. Nos.290 of 2020 & 467 of 2021 are also disposed of.

¶23

Page 2 of 3

¶24

// 3 //

¶25

Urgent certified copy of this order be granted on proper application.

¶26

(S. Pujahari) Judge

¶27

RKS

¶28

Page 3 of 3

Dilip Kumar Malik@Mallick v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dilip Kumar Malik@Mallick 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Jeeban@Jibanjyoti Bharimal Vs State of Odisha

Kalia Pradhan @ Somanath Pradhan Vs State of Odisha

Jitendra Kumar Jena Vs State of Odisha

Soumendra Kumar Dash Vs State of Odisha

Narayan Rana Vs State of Odisha

Sanjukta Rana Vs State of Odisha