Rama Chandra Parida Vs State of Odisha — Cheque Dishonour | Orissa HC (2025)

Rama Chandra Parida Vs State of Odisha — Cheque Dishonour | Orissa HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Liberty granted to the petitioner to raise all defences available to him before the learned Court below by claiming discharge in I.C.C. Case No.409 of 2017; the learned J.M.F.C., Salipur directed to consider any such discharge application as per law preferably within two weeks of receipt of a copy of the order; urgent certified copy to issue as per rules.

Issue for consideration

Whether the decision of the learned Court below to proceed against the petitioner is legally tenable, given the incorrect mention of the petitioner's father's name in the notice and complaint and the non-filing of the track report therewith. +2 more

Ratio / Principle

Since the petitioner had already entered appearance before the learned Court below, the grounds advanced in the revision should be agitated before that Court by demanding discharge, and the Court was inclined to grant liberty to the petitioner accordingly, as such course would serve the purpose and meet the ends of justice.

Key takeaways

The revision stands disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to raise all defences available to him before the learned Court below claiming discharge; any application requesting discharge on such grounds is to be considered by the learned J.M.F.C., Salipur in I.C.C. Case No.409 of 2017 and an appropriate order passed as per law, preferably within two weeks of receipt of a copy of the order.ratio¶27

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

CRLREV No.598 of 2025 (High Court of Orissa at Cuttack, R.K. Pattanaik, J.), order dated 12.11.2025 — Revision by Rama Chandra Parida against the order of cognizance dated 17th May, 2025 passed by the learned J.M.F.C., Salipur in I.C.C. Case No.409 of 2017, wherein cognizance was taken of an offence under Section 138 N.I. Act. Grounds urged: (i) the cognizance order proceeded against the complainant, with incorrect mention of the petitioner's father's name in the notice and complaint and the track report not filed therewith; (ii) the complaint was barred under Section 468(2)(c) Cr.P.C., corresponding to Section 514 BNSS, the cognizance being after one year from the date of cause of action; and (iii) the impugned order at Annexure-1 inadvertently named the complainant instead of the petitioner. As the petitioner had already entered appearance before the Court below, notice on the opposite parties was dispensed with and the revision was disposed of at the admission stage, with liberty to the petitioner to raise all defences before the learned Court below by seeking discharge; any discharge application on such grounds is to be considered by the learned J.M.F.C., Salipur preferably within two weeks of receipt of the order. Urgent certified copy directed as per rules.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

CRLREV No.598 of 2025

Rama Chandra Parida

…. Petitioner

Mr. R. Mallick, Advocate

-Versus-

State of Odisha & another

…. Opposite Parties

Ms. B. Dash, ASC

CORAM:

MR. JUSTICE R.K. PATTANAIK

ORDER

12.11.2025

Order No.

Heard Mr. Mallick, learned counsel for the petitioner.

Notice to the opposite parties is dispensed with as the matter is disposed of at the stage of admission.

Instant revision is filed by the petitioner challenging the impugned order of cognizance dated 17^th May, 2025 passed in connection with I.C.C. Case No.409 of 2017 by the learned J.M.F.C., Salipur on the grounds stated.

Perused a copy of the complaint as at Annexure-2.

Mr. Mallick, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the order of cognizance has been against the complainant and that apart, there has been incorrect mention of the father’s name of the petitioner in the notice and complaint and the track report was not filed therewith, hence, therefore, the learned

Page 1 of 3

Court’s decision to proceed against him is legally not tenable. It is further submitted that the complaint is not maintainable in view of the bar contained under Section 468(2)(c) Cr.P.C., which corresponds to Section 514 BNSS, since the order of cognizance is after one year from the date of cause of action.

Inadvertently, as it appears from the impugned order at Annexure-1, the learned Court below has taken cognizance of the offence under Section 138 N.I. Act erroneously mentioning therein the name of the complainant instead of the petitioner. Nevertheless, such other grounds, as mentioned herein above, have been advanced by the petitioner challenging the order of cognizance dated 17^th May, 2025. The legality of the cognizance order at Annexure-1 is also challenged by pleading that the same is time barred.

In course of hearing, it is informed to the Court by Mr. Mallick, learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has already entered appearance before the learned Court below. In such view of the matter, the Court is of the considered view that the grounds which have been advanced by the petitioner at present should be agitated before the learned Court below demanding discharge. In other words, the Court is inclined to grant liberty in favour of the petitioner to raise all such defence available to him before the learned Court below claiming discharge for consideration in connection with I.C.C. Case No.409 of 2017 on merit and in accordance with law as such course of action would serve the purpose and meet the ends of justice.

Page 2 of 3

Hence, it is ordered.

In the result, the revision stands disposed of with the liberty allowed in favour of the petitioner as above. It is further directed that in case, any such application requesting discharge is filed by the petitioner on any such grounds, the learned J.M.F.C., Salipur shall consider it in I.C.C. Case No.409 of 2017 and to pass appropriate order as per law but at the earliest preferably within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order.

10. Issue urgent certified copy as per rules.

(R.K. Pattanaik) Judge

Alok

Signature Not Verified

Digitally Signed Signed by: ALOK RANJAN SETHY Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT Date: 13-Nov-2025 18:05:57

Page 3 of 3