Disposed¶25

Basanta Kumar Sahoo v. State of Odisha

Orissa HC28 Jul 2025CRLMC/1306/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

CRLMC No.1306 of 2025, High Court of Orissa, Aditya Kumar Mohapatra J.; inherent powers; quashing of criminal proceeding; section 482 and 173 Cr.P.C.; Section 528 & 193 B.N.S.S. 2023; further investigation; handwriting expert opinion; signature verification on withdrawal form; G.R.Case No.62 of 2008; J.M.F.C. Ranpur; application dated 13.01.2019 unaddressed; final charge sheet filed; liberty to approach trial court; discretion of trial court; fair trial; application disposed of.

What did the court decide?

Liberty granted to the Petitioner to file a fresh application before the trial court for sending the withdrawal form for handwriting-expert examination of the signature during trial, with the trial court to decide its necessity and pass orders in accordance with law keeping in view fair trial. ¶25

Basanta Kumar Sahoo Vs State of Odisha — Orissa HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶25

Issue for consideration

Whether the inherent power of the Court should be invoked to quash the criminal proceeding and/or direct further investigation, including obtaining a handwriting expert's opinion on the Petitioner's signature on the withdrawal form forming part of the alleged crime.

¶17

Court's answer

Rather than itself quashing the proceeding or ordering further investigation, the Court disposed of the application by granting the Petitioner liberty to move a fresh application before the trial court praying that the withdrawal form be sent for examination of the signature contained therein by a handwriting expert during trial; the trial court shall pass necessary orders in accordance with law on such application.

¶22

Ratio / Principle

It is within the discretion of the learned trial court to decide whether verification of the Petitioner's signature on the withdrawal form is necessary for a just decision, and the trial court shall pass necessary orders keeping in view the concept of fair trial.

¶24

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Orissa High Court at Cuttack (A.K. Mohapatra, J.) — CRLMC No.1306 of 2025, decided 28.07.2025 (Basanta Kumar Sahoo v. State of Odisha & others). The Petitioner sought invocation of inherent power under section 482 and 173 Cr.P.C. read with Section 528 & 193 of B.N.S.S., 2023 to quash the criminal proceeding arising out of G.R. Case No.62 of 2008 (J.M.F.C., Ranpur) and/or a direction for further investigation, in particular for handwriting-expert opinion on the Petitioner's signature on a withdrawal form forming part of the alleged crime. His earlier application dated 13.01.2019 before the trial court on the same point had gone unaddressed, and investigation stood concluded with a final charge sheet filed. Held: the CRLMC application was disposed of by granting liberty to the Petitioner to renew the prayer before the trial court during trial; whether verification of the signature was necessary for a just decision lay within the trial court's discretion, to be exercised keeping in view the concept of fair trial. No precedent was cited.

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK CRLMC No.1306 of 2025

¶2

Basanta Kumar Sahoo

¶3

..... Appellant

¶4

Represented By Adv. - Aparesh Bhoi

¶5

-versus-

¶6

1) State Of Odisha ..... Respondents

¶7

Superintendent Of Police,nayagarh

¶8

I.i.c.,ranpur Police Station

¶9

Dhaneswar Pradhan

¶10

Represented By Adv. – Mr.Sobhan Panigrahi, ASC

¶11

CORAM:

¶12

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR MOHAPATRA ORDER 28.07.2025

¶13

Order No.

¶14

¶15

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

¶16

Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner as well as the learned Additional Standing Counsel for the State. Perused the Application as well as the documents annexed thereto.

¶17

By filing the present Application under section 482 and 173 Cr.P.C. read with Section 528 & 193 of B.N.S.S., 2023, the Petitioner has sought for invocation of inherent power to quash the criminal proceeding and for further investigation or in the alternative for a direction to further investigate and to obtain opinion of handwriting expert regarding the Petitioner’s signature on the withdrawal form, which is a part of the alleged crime.

¶18

Learned counsel for the Petitioner at the outset contended that initially the Petitioner filed an application on

¶19

Page 1 of 3.

¶20

13.01.2019 in G.R.Case No.62 of 2008 pending in the file of the learned J.M.F.C., Ranpur with an intention to persuade the trial court to send the withdrawal form for verification of the signature of the Petitioner. Learned counsel for the Petitioner further submitted that no order has been passed on such application. He also submitted that the investigation has been concluded and final Charge Sheet has been filed. Being aggrieved by the inaction of the learned trial court in sending the withdrawal form for verification of the signature of the Petitioner in such withdrawal form, the Petitioner has approached this Court by filing the present CRLMC Application.

¶21

Learned Additional Standing Counsel for the State on the other hand contended that in the meantime investigation has been concluded and final Charge Sheet has been filed. He further contended that the Petitioner will get an opportunity at the time of adducing defence evidence. In such view of the matter learned counsel for the State contended that the present application is filed with an intention to delay the trial which is pending since 2008 and accordingly, the present CRLMC application be dismissed.

¶22

Having heard learned counsel for the respective parties, after careful examination of their submissions, taking into consideration the background facts and keeping in view the grievance of the Petitioner as involved in the present Application, this Court is of the view that the present Application can be disposed of by granting liberty to the Petitioner to move a fresh application before the trial

¶23

Page 2 of 3.

¶24

court with a prayer to send the withdrawal form for examination of the signature contained therein by the Handwriting expert during trial. In such eventuality, the trial court shall pass necessary orders in accordance with law on such application. It is made clear that it is the discretion of the learned trial court to decide as to whether the verification of signature of the Petitioner on such form is necessary for a just decision in the case and accordingly learned trial court shall pass necessary orders keeping in view the concept of fair trial.

¶25

With the aforesaid observation/direction, the CRLMC Application stands disposed of.

¶26

( A.K. Mohapatra)

¶27

Judge

¶28

RKS

¶29

Signature Not Verified Page 3 of 3.

¶30

Digitally Signed Signed by: RAMESH KUMAR SINGH Designation: AR-CUM-Senior Secretary Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa Date: 29-Jul-2025 14:48:17

Basanta Kumar Sahoo v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Basanta Kumar Sahoo v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Nirmalya Guru Vs State of Odisha

Safi Patra Vs State of Odisha

Amarendra Nayak Vs Vir Vikram Jadhav, P.Secy., Works Dept.

Jitendriya Mohanty Vs State of Odisha

Umamani Nayak Vs C.E.O.,Nesco.

Rahul Nag Vs State of Odisha