Allowed

Tanmaya Pattnaik v. State of Orissa

Orissa HC17 Oct 2023CRLMA/3/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court restored a dismissed Section 482 Cr.P.C. application (originally filed as a motion) to file. The petitioner failed to comply with a notice issuance order passed in absentia, leading to the dismissal, but the Court held that the party should not suffer for legal lapses. The application is restored subject to a deposit of Rs. 2,000 and continuation of a prior interim stay order if the

What did the court decide?

CRLMC No.3115 of 2008 restored to file subject to depositing Rs. 2,000 in Advocates' Welfare Fund within seven days; prior interim stay order continues if trial is pending.

Tanmaya Pattnaik Vs State of Orissa — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Orissa HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

¶2

CRLMA No.3 of 2018

¶3

Tanmaya Pattnaik

¶4

…. Petitioner Mr. S.P.Sarangi,Advocate

¶5

-versus-

¶6

State of Odisha & another

¶7

…. Opposite Parties

¶8

Mr. P.C. Das, A.S.C.

¶9

CORAM:

¶10

JUSTICE A.K. MOHAPATRA

Order No.

ORDER 17.10.2023

This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual /Physical Mode).

¶15

The CRLMA has been filed by the petitioner seeking restoration of the application under Section 482 filed by the petitioner which was registered as CRLMC No.3115 of 2008.

¶16

CRLMC No.3115 of 2008 was filed by the petitioner with a prayer to quash the order of cognizance dated 19.01.2007 under Section 420,468,471,418 and 120-B of I.P.C. passed by the learned S.D.J.M., Bhubaneswar of further a prayer has also been made to quash the entire criminal proceeding bearing G.R. case No.3966 of 2006 pending in the very same Court. On perusal of the record it appears that the above noted application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. was initially filed on 24.12.2008. The same was taken on 09.02.2009, this Court while issuing notice to the state-opposite parties passed an interim order thereby staying the further proceeding in G.R. Case No.3966 of 2006 until further orders.

¶17

On 04.03.2009, an oral prayer was made before this Court to the present opposite party No.2 such prayer was allowed and accordingly

¶18

// 2 //

¶19

notice was issued to Opposite Party No.2 vide order dated 04.09.2009. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the Petitioner that notice requisites be filed, however, valid notice could not be served due to lack of proper address, thereafter steps vide order dated 02.07.2013 direction was given to take fresh steps for issuance of notice to Opposite Party No.2. However, such direction could not be complied with, finally a Coordinate Bench of this Court vide dated 15.05.2015 in the absence of any counsel for the representing the petitioner passed an order that requisite for issuance of notice to Opposite Party No.2 shall be filed within six weeks failing which the matter shall be dismissed without further reference to the Bench.

¶20

In the aforesaid context, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that since the order dated 15.05.2015 was passed in the absence of the counsel of the petitioner, no steps could be taken, hence the matter has been dismissed for non-compliance of order dated 15.05.2015.

¶21

Learned counsel for the State on the other hand contended that the matter has been dismissed since 15.02.2016 pursuant to the Court order dated 15.05.2015. Therefore, it is not known as to whether the trial has progressed in the meantime or not and whether the case in the court below still revives. In such of the matter, learned Addl. Standing Counsel submitted that it would not be in the interest of justice to restore the application at this stage.

¶22

Learned counsel for the petitioner on the hand contended that the trial in G.R. Case No.3966 of 2006 is still pending before S.D.J.M., Bhubaneswar.

¶23

On a careful analysis of the submissions made by the learned counsels appearing for parties and on a careful examination of the background facts, this Court is of the considered view that no doubt the petitioner is a fault in complying with the order passed by this Court.

¶24

// 3 //

¶25

However, the latches of the lawyer the party should not suffer, however, this Court is inclined to allow the CRLMA. Accordingly, the CRLMC No.3115 of 2008 is directed to be restored to file but subject to depositing cost of Rs.2,000/- (Rupees Two Thousand) in the Advocates’ Welfare Fund of Orissa High Court Bar Association within seven days and furnishing money receipt thereof in proof of deposit. Accordingly CRLMC is restored to file the interim order dated 09.02.2009 shall continue to remain in force subject to the condition that the trial in G.R. Case No.3966 of 2066 is still pending S.D.J.M., Bhubaneswar and further such interim dated 09.02.2009 shall operate till the next date.

¶26

Keeping in view the fact that the matter is of the year 2008

¶27

Registry is directed to place this matter before the appropriate assigned bench as expeditiously as possible.

¶28

( A.K. Mohapatra )
Judge

¶29

Rubi

¶30

Signature Not Verified

¶31

Digitally Signed Signed by: RUBI BEHERA Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa Date: 30-Oct-2023 11:09:26

Tanmaya Pattnaik v. State of Orissa

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Tanmaya Pattnaik v. State of Orissa

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sashi Bhusan Sahani Vs State and Ors.

Kishore Chandra Bhuyan Vs State of Odisha

Nrusingha Charan Ojha Vs State of Odisha

Baidyanath Mishra Vs State of Odisha

Sanjaya Keshari Mohapatra Vs State of Odisha

Tanmaya Pattnaik Vs State of Orissa