Disposed¶27

Rashmikanta Satpathy v. Samanta Heramba Kumar Patasani

Orissa HC3 Dec 2025CRLMC/370/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Orissa High Court, Cuttack; CRLMC 370/2019; Section 133(1) Cr.P.C. proceedings before Executive Magistrate (CMC 943/2016); criminal revision (Crl.Rev. 60/2018, Sessions Judge Khurda); ex-parte opposite parties; interim stay; disposal of revision and setting aside of magistrate's order without opportunity of hearing; violation of natural justice; order held unsustainable; remitted to Sessions Judge for fresh decision on merits within three weeks; no precedent cited.

What did the court decide?

The CRLMC stands disposed of with the parties directed to appear before the learned Sessions Judge on 08.12.2025, and the Sessions Judge directed to dispose of Crl. Revision No.60 of 2018 on merit, in accordance with law, within three (3) weeks if there be no other legal impediment. ¶27

Rashmikanta Satpathy Vs Samanta Heramba Kumar Patasani — Orissa HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶27

Issue for consideration

Whether the order dated 24.09.2018 of the learned Sessions Judge in Crl. Revision No.60 of 2018 — disposing of the revision and setting aside the Executive Magistrate's order dated 18.06.2018 in CMC No.943 of 2016 without affording the petitioner (Opposite Party Nos.1 & 2 in the revision) an opportunity of being heard — is vitiated by illegality.

¶23

Court's answer

The learned Revisional Court committed apparent illegality in disposing of Crl. Revision No.60 of 2018 and setting aside the Executive Magistrate's order dated 18.06.2018 without affording the petitioner (Opposite Party Nos.1 & 2 in the revision) an opportunity of being heard, and the order is not sustainable in the eye of law.

¶23

Ratio / Principle

Both parties were directed to appear before the learned Sessions Judge, who is to dispose of Crl. Revision No.60 of 2018 on merit, in accordance with law, within three (3) weeks, subject to no other legal impediment, upon appearance of both parties on 08.12.2025 — i.e., the matter is remitted for fresh disposal after hearing.

¶26

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Orissa at Cuttack, CRLMC No. 370 of 2019 (Chittaranjan Dash, J.; order dated 03.12.2025). The petitioner challenged the Sessions Judge, Khurda at Bhubaneswar's order dated 24.09.2018 in Crl. Revision No.60 of 2018, whereby — while disposing an objection of Opposite Party Nos.1 & 2 to an interim stay — the Revisional Court also disposed of the revision and set aside the Additional DCP-cum-Executive Magistrate, Bhubaneswar's order dated 18.06.2018 in CMC No.943 of 2016 (application under Section 133(1) Cr.P.C.) without affording the petitioner (Opposite Party Nos.1 & 2 in the revision) an opportunity of being heard. Holding this to be apparent illegality unsustainable in law, the Court disposed of the CRLMC directing both parties to appear before the Sessions Judge on 08.12.2025 and the revision to be decided afresh on merit, in accordance with law, within three weeks.

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

¶2

CRLMC No. 370 of 2019

¶3

Rashmikanta Satpathy …. Petitioner

¶4

Mr. B.S. Tripathy, Advocate

¶5

-versus-

¶6

Samanta Heramba Kumar …. Opp. Parties Patasani and others

¶7

Mr. N.P. Parija, Advocate

¶8

CORAM:

¶9

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE CHITTARANJAN DASH

ORDER

Order No.

03.12.2025

Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner and the State.

¶15

By means of this application, the Petitioner seeks to challenge the order dated 24.09.2018 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Khurda at Bhubaneswar in Crl. Revision No.60 of 2018 under Annexure-4.

¶16

The learned Court in the aforesaid order has been pleased to set aside the order dated 18.06.2018 passed by learned Additional DCP-cum-Executive Magistrate, Bhubaneswar in CMC No.943 of 2016 in connection with an application under Section 133 (1) of the Cr.P.C.

¶17

Page 1 of 4

¶18

During the course of hearing in the application, it was brought to the notice of the Court in respect to the order sheets maintained in the Crl. Revision No.60 of 2018. Vide order dated 03.07.2018 in the aforesaid Crl. Revision No.60 of 2018, the learned Court held the notice served on the Opposite Party in the said Criminal Revision to be sufficient and in absence of any step having taken from the side of the Opposite Parties, both the Opposite Party Nos.1 & 2 in the said Criminal Revision was set ex-parte. Subsequently, the matter having been heard on 03.07.2018, the learned Court passed order of stay of the impugned order dated 18.06.2018 passed in CMC No.943 of 2016. However, on the appearance of the Opposite Party and on an application filed to set aside the aforesaid order of stay, the learned Court heard the matter on 24.09.2018.

¶19

The perusal of the aforesaid order passed in Crl. Revision No.60 of 2018 dated 24.09.2018, it appears that the learned Court while disposing the objection of the Opposite Party Nos.1 & 2 in the said revision, in order to set aside the impugned order of stay dated 18.06.2018 passed in CMC No.943/16, proceeded further and disposed of Crl. Revision No.60 of 2018, setting aside the order of the learned DCP-cum-Executive Magistrate

¶20

Page 2 of 4

¶21

dated 18.06.2018 without affording the opportunity of being heard.

¶22

Mr. N.P. Parija, learned counsel appearing for the Opposite Party, while did not dispute the aforesaid fact, submitted that circumstantially the matter has been heard by the learned Court in Crl. Revision No.60 of 2018 and has appropriately passed the order setting aside the impugned order dated 18.06.2018 passed by the learned Additional DCP-cum-Executive Magistrate and submits no illegality has been committed by the Revisional court. However, in the impugned order, apparently, it appears that the learned court while disposing the interim order of stay passed by it dated 03.07.2018, inadvertently disposed of the Crl. Revision No.60 of 2018 setting aside the order dated 18.06.2018 passed by the learned Executive Magistrate under challenge in the Revision Application disposed of the revision, without affording opportunity of hearing to the Petitioner, herein, as Opposite Party Nos.1 & 2 in the said Criminal Revision..

¶23

In view of the above, there is apparent illegality committed by the learned Revisional Court, which is not sustainable in the eye of law.

¶24

Having regard to the facts and circumstances, the Parties are directed to appear before the learned Sessions

¶25

Page 3 of 4

¶26

Judge, who shall do well in disposing the Crl. Revision No.60 of 2018 on merit, in accordance with law, within a period of three (3) weeks, if there be no other legal impediment, upon appearance of both the Parties on 08.12.2025.

¶27