Disposed¶24

Rajendra Behera v. State of Odisha

Orissa HC10 Nov 2025CRLMC/4581/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Section 482 Cr.P.C. quashing application; C.T. Case No.19 of 2025; Balikuda P.S. Case No.70 of 2009; split-up trial; acquittal of parents-in-law vide judgment dated 13.08.2010; CT Case No.65/23 of 2010, Addl. Sessions Judge FTC Jagatsinghpur; absconding accused; husband of deceased as principal accused; different footing from acquitted co-accused; direction to conclude trial within one year; Orissa High Court CRLMC No.4581 of 2025; Rajendra Behera v. State of Odisha and Charulata Mohanty.

What did the court decide?

Quashing declined; the learned trial Court was directed to expedite the trial and conclude it as expeditiously as possible, preferably within one year from the date of communication of the certified copy of this order. ¶24

Rajendra Behera Vs State of Odisha — Orissa HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶24

Issue for consideration

Whether the criminal proceeding against the Petitioner in C.T. Case No.19 of 2025 should be quashed on the basis of the acquittal of the Petitioner's parents (parents-in-law of the deceased) in C.T. Case No.65/23 of 2010, given that the Petitioner stands in a similar footing as claimed by him but is contended by the State to be the principal accused.

¶19

Court's answer

The Petitioner stands in a different footing from the persons acquitted vide judgment dated 13.08.2010 in CT Case No.65/23 of 2010; being the husband of the deceased, he is required to face trial.

¶21

Ratio / Principle

Taking into consideration the seriousness of the allegation, the Court was not inclined to quash the criminal proceeding.

¶23

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Orissa High Court, Cuttack — CRLMC No.4581 of 2025 (decided 10.11.2025, Aditya Kumar Mohapatra, J.). Rajendra Behera, husband of the deceased and, per the State, the principal accused who had remained absconding so that the trial was split up, filed an application under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of the criminal proceeding in C.T. Case No.19 of 2025 (arising out of Balikuda P.S. Case No.70 of 2009) pending before the Addl. Sessions Judge, Jagatsinghpur, relying on the acquittal of his parents (parents-in-law of the deceased) vide judgment dated 13.08.2010 in C.T./CT Case No.65/23 of 2010, FTC, Jagatsinghpur. Held: the Petitioner stands in a different footing from the acquitted parents and, being the husband of the deceased, is required to face trial; further, considering the seriousness of the allegation, the Court was not inclined to quash the criminal proceeding. The trial Court was directed to expedite and conclude the trial preferably within one year from communication of the certified copy of the order, and the CRLMC was disposed of.

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK CRLMC No.4581 of 2025

¶2

Rajendra Behera

¶3

..... Petitioner

¶4

Represented By Adv. - Alok Kumar Panda

¶5

-versus-

¶6

1) State Of Odisha ..... Opp. Parties 2) Charulata Mohanty Represented By Adv. –

¶7

Smt. S. Nayak, ASC

¶8

CORAM:

¶9

MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR MOHAPATRA

ORDER

10.11.2025

Order No.

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

¶14

Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner as well as learned counsel for the State. Perused the application as well as the prayer made therein.

¶15

By filing the present application under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. the Petitioner seeks quashing of the criminal proceeding involved in C.T. Case No.19 of 2025 which arises out of Balikuda P.S. Case No.70 of 2009 now pending in the Court of learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Jagatsinghpur.

¶16

Learned counsel for the Petitioner at the outset contended that earlier the parents of the present Petitioner who are parents-inlaw of the deceased faced trial in C.T. Case No.65/23 of 2010 in

¶17

Page 1 of 3.

¶18

the Court of learned Addl. Sessions Judge, FTC, Jagatsinghpur.

¶19

The parents of the present Petitioner have been acquitted vide judgment dated 13.08.2010. So far as the present Petitioner is concerned, it is stated that since he remained absconded and did not faced trial. Therefore, the trial was split up so far the parents are concerned. Learned counsel for the Petitioner at this juncture submitted the Petitioner stands in the similar footing to the accused persons who are the parents of the present Petitioner. As such, learned counsel for the Petitioner contended that the present criminal proceeding against the Petitioner be quashed. On the basis of the judgment of acquittal of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, FTC, Jagatsinghpur.

¶20

Learned counsel for the State on the other hand objected to the prayer made on the present application. It is further submitted that the Petitioner, who happens to the husband of the deceased, is the principal accused and cannot be equated to the parents-in-law who faced trial and who have been acquitted by the learned trial Court. On such ground of the learned counsel for the State contended that the present application is unsustainable in the eyes of law, and, accordingly, the application be dismissed.

¶21

Heard learned counsel appearing for both sides, on careful examination of the materials on record, this Court is of the view that the Petitioner stands in a different footing to the persons who have been acquitted vide judgment dated 13.08.2010 passed in CT Case No.65/23 of 2010. The Petitioner being the husband of the deceased stands in the different footing and therefore, he is

¶22

Page 2 of 3.

¶23

required to face trial. Otherwise also, taking into consideration the seriousness of the allegation, this Court is not inclined to quash the criminal proceeding. Accordingly, the present application is being disposed of by directing the learned trial Court to expedite the trial and to conclude the same as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of one year from the date of communication of certified copy of this order.

¶24

With the aforesaid observation and direction, the CRLMC stands disposed of.

¶25

( A.K. Mohapatra)

¶26

Judge

¶27

Sisir

¶28

Signature Not Verified

¶29

Digitally Signed Signed by: SISIR KUMAR SETHI Designation: Personal Assistant Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT Date: 13-Nov-2025 10:26:37

¶30

Page 3 of 3.

Rajendra Behera v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajendra Behera 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

Saudamini Mohanty Vs Gita Pattnaik

Madhuri Mallick Vs Radhakrushna Mallick

Ganesh Pr.Agrawalla Vs Manoj Ku.Patra

Khandagiri Traders Vs Dilip Kumar Sahoo

Ranjubala Samal Vs State of Odisha

Ranjan Kumar Nayak Vs State of Odisha