Dismissed

Sunil Kumar Routray v. Uttarani Shoe Store

Orissa HC8 Apr 2024CRLREV/41/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a criminal revision petition challenging conviction under Section 138 NI Act. The petitioner, who had been on interim relief since 2011, failed to file requisites for service on the opposite party despite multiple adjournments. The court found the petition deserved dismissal for non-prosecution.

What did the court decide?

Criminal Revision Petition dismissed; interim order vacated.

Sunil Kumar Routray Vs Uttarani Shoe Store — Cheque Dishonour | Orissa HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

¶2

CRLREV No. 41 OF 2011

¶3

Sunil Kumar Routray …. Petitioner(s)

¶4

Mr. B. Parida, Advocate

¶5

-versus-

¶6

M/s. Uttarani Shoe Store and …. Opposite Party(s) another Mr. B. K. Ragada, AGA

¶7

CORAM: JUSTICE SIBO SANKAR MISHRA

ORDER

08.04.2024

Order No.

09.

Heard.

¶13

The present case is arising out of a conviction and sentence passed by the learned J.M.F.C., Banapur, whereby the Petitioner was convicted for offence under Section 138 of the N.I. Act and a sentence of one year simple imprisonment with compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- was imposed. The Petitioner had approached the Appellate Court challenging the said order. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, Khurda vide its judgment dated 16.12.2010 reduced the sentence to one month simple imprisonment whereas the compensation amount of Rs.1,00,000/- was maintained. Therefore, the Petitioner has filed the instant Criminal Revision Petition.

¶14

Page 1 of 3

¶15

On 01.02.2011, notice was issued to the opposite Party No.1 and the Petitioner was directed to file requisites. Subsequently, on 01.02.2011, the Petitioner was enlarged on bail and this Court also stayed the realization of balance amount of compensation that was passed in I.C.C. Case No.17 of 2006.

¶16

It appears from the record that after getting the interim order, the Petitioner has not filed the requisites for effecting service on Opposite Party No.1. The matter has been pending since then. Eventually, the matter was taken up on 13.10.2023 wherein learned counsel for the Petitioner sought an adjournment. Again the matter was taken up on 24.11.2023, learned counsel for the Petitioner sought for an accommodation. The matter was adjourned to 02.04.2024 and on that day, learned counsel for the Petitioner also prayed for time. Today, when the matter was taken up, learned counsel for the Petitioner seeks further time. However, the fact remains that the Petitioner although has been enjoying the interim order since 2011 but has not filed the requisites to effect service on the Opposite Party No.1, therefore, on that ground alone, the present Criminal Revision Petition deserves to be dismissed.

¶17

Accordingly, the CRLREV is dismissed for nonprosecution.

¶18

Page 2 of 3

¶19

Interim order passed on 01.02.2011 in Misc. Case No.54 of

¶20

2011 stands vacated.

¶21

(S.S. Mishra) Judge

¶22

Swarna

¶23

Signature Not Verified

¶24

Digitally Signed Signed by: SWARNAPRAVA DASH Designation: Senior Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa Date: 10-Apr-2024 11:41:12

¶25

Page 3 of 3

Sunil Kumar Routray v. Uttarani Shoe Store

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sunil Kumar Routray v. Uttarani Shoe Store

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

Naresh Chandra Nayak Vs State of Odisha

Narasimhamurty Panigrahi Vs Saroj Kumar Panda

Anjan Kumar Sahu Vs State of Odisha

Jatia Meher Vs State

Padmabati Dash Vs Mukundadev Acharya

Sarada Prasad Mishra@Kalia Vs State of Odisha