Disposed

Gyana Ranjan Nayak v. State of Odisha

Orissa HC1 Mar 2023CRLMC/3214/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought quashing of an FIR alleging same cause of action as an earlier ICC case for cheque dishonour. Court distinguished crime under N.I. Act from IPC cheating offences. Granted liberty to move for discharge/bail before lower court considering all records.

What did the court decide?

Quashing of FIR dismissed; liberty granted to move for discharge and bail before the Court below.

Gyana Ranjan Nayak Vs State of Odisha — Cheque Dishonour | Orissa HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

¶2

CRLMC No. 3214 of 2022

¶3

Gyana Ranjan Nayak … Petitioner

¶4

Mr. B.S.Panigrahi, Advocate

¶5

-Versus -

¶6

State of Odisha

¶7

…. Opposite Parties

¶8

Mr. B.P.Tripathy, A.G.A

¶9

CORAM:

¶10

JUSTICE SASHIKANTA MISHRA

¶11

ORDER

¶12

01.03.2023

¶13

This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.

¶14

Order No.

¶15

07.

¶16

The petitioner has approached this Court with prayer to quash the FIR under Annexure-5. It is stated that the FIR was registered as per order passed by learned S.D.J.M., Bhubaneswar in I.C.C. Case No. 2636 of 2017, which in turn arose out of a complaint filed by the opposite party No.2.

¶17

The present petition under Section 482 has been filed on the ground that for self same cause of action the opposite party No.2 has already filed a complaint being I.C.C. Case No. 538 of 2017 in the Court of learned S.D.J.M., Bhubaneswar under Section 138 of N.I. Act. The present complaint also relates to the same offence inasmuch as in the complaint petition, the fact of dishonor of the cheques purportedly paid by the petitioner to the complainant has been averred. This, according to learned counsel for the petitioner, is squarely covered under the complaint earlier filed by opposite party No.2.

¶18

Learned counsel appearing for opposite party No.2 submits

¶19

Page 1 of 1

¶20

that the transaction between the parties involves two offences, firstly, the offence under Section 138 of N.I. Act and the offences under Section 406,420,120-B read with Section 34 of the IPC.

¶21

It is his further submission that the subsequent complaint refers to the fradulent acts allegedly committed by the petitioner with the intention of cheating him and therefore, the same is a different cause of action. In order to appreciate the rival contentions, it is necessary to refer to all the relevant records and documents enclosed to both the complaint cases, which can be done by the Court below on an appropriate application being filed by the petitioner.

¶22

The CRLMC is therefore disposed of granting liberty to the petitioner to move for discharge on the grounds available to him under law before the Court below at the appropriate stage. If such an application is filed, the court below shall consider the same with reference to the earlier complaint and the documents on record as also the contentions raised by the parties in accordance with law. It shall also be open to the petitioner to move the Court below seeking bail in which event, the Court below shall consider the same on its

¶23

own merit.

¶24

(Sashikanta Mishra) Judge

¶25

Deepak

¶26

Page 2 of 2

Gyana Ranjan Nayak v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gyana Ranjan Nayak 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Birendra Mangraj@Banti Vs State of Odisha

Prangya Paramita Harichandan Vs Ouat,Bhubaneswar

Habeli Jena@Kishore Kumar Jena Vs State of Odisha

Pinae Pipina Amanta Vs State of Odisha

Dayanidhi Mahapatra Vs State of Odisha

Bhubuna Nanda Sahu Vs Bibhu Prasad Sarangi