Partly allowed

Swaleha Khatun v. State of Odisha

Orissa HC28 Jul 2022CRLMC/2855/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the petitioner to release on bail if she surrenders within three weeks. The court dismissed the grievance regarding the closing of her defence case, finding no illegality due to delays and repeated absences by the petitioner, and thus upheld the issuance of the Non-Bailable Warrant.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner allowed release on bail if she surrenders within three weeks; prayer to quash NBW(A) dismissed.

Swaleha Khatun Vs State of Odisha — Cheque Dishonour | Orissa HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

¶2

CRLMC No.2855 of 2021

¶3

Smt. Swaleha Khatun

¶4

…. Petitioner

¶5

-versus-

¶6

State of Odisha and another

¶7

…. Opposite Parties

¶8

CORAM: JUSTICE S.PUJAHARI

ORDER

28.07.2022

Order No.

This matter is taken up through Hybrid mode.

¶14

Petitioner’s grievance in this case is that though she had no legally enforceable debt or liability but had given a blank cheque but the same had been misutilized and a complaint has been lodged. However in the complaint, the evidence was taken and the prosecution complaint has been closed. The accused though given a liberty to adduce rebuttal evidence for the offending cheque, the punishment that was made against her is improper, accordingly a prayer is made to adduce defence evidence but the court did not allow her to do so and closed her case. Now the case is posted for argument. However due to absent on repeated calls, NBW(A) has been issued against the Petitioner. From the order of the trial court, it is revealed that the Petitioner was given several opportunities to adduce defence evidence in the criminal trial and when Petitioner

¶15

Page 1 of 2

¶16

// 2 //

¶17

remained absent on several calls, the trial court constrained to reject the time petition of the Petitioner and posted the case to 17.12.2021 for argument. Accordingly, a prayer has been made to quash the order dated 07.12.2021 under Annexure-1 and direct the trial court to allow the Petitioner to adduce defence evidence.

¶18

Perused the impugned order, so also consider the submission made by the parties. It appears that in the aforesaid proceeding the Petitioner is facing trial as an accused for dishonor of cheque. The proceeding is lingering since 2018 and the Petitioner appears to have contributed to delay in disposal of the same though the proceeding is required to be disposed of expeditiously. Therefore this Court finds no illegality or infirmity in closing the defence evidence and issuing NBW(A) for procuring the attendance of the accused Petitioner. However, as it is submitted that the Petitioner would surrender and make a motion for bail before the Court in seisin over the matter. If the Petitioner does so within a period of three weeks hence, allow him to be released on bail keeping an undertaking that he shall cooperate with the trial besides other conditions to be imposed.

¶19

With the aforesaid order, CRLMC stands disposed of.

¶20

Issue urgent certified copy as per rules.

¶21

(S. Pujahari) Judge

¶22

Uks

¶23

Page 2 of 2

Swaleha Khatun v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Swaleha Khatun 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

Satyabrata Dhir Vs State of Odisha

T.a.Sampath Kumar Vs Asst.Regr.Co.Orissa

T.a.Sampath Kumar Vs Asst.Regr.Co.Orissa

Biswajit Hota Vs Subhashree Panda

Chema@Niranjan Donak Vs State of Odisha

Ashok Mishra @ Ashok Kumar Mishra Vs Ellora Pattnaik