Dismissed

Choudhry Baldev Prasad Nanda v. State of Odisha

Orissa HC20 Apr 2026CRLMC/1197/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Orissa heard a petition seeking quashing of cognizance orders, charge sheet, and FIR. The petitioner argued the FIR was a counterblast with fabricated medical evidence. The Court declined to quash proceedings, reserving appreciation of evidence for the trial court but noting contradictions in medical reports for future consideration.

What did the court decide?

Petition for quashing of FIRs and orders dismissed; Leave to file application for discharge granted.

Choudhry Baldev Prasad Nanda Vs State of Odisha — Quashing and FIR | Orissa HC (2026)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

¶2

CRLMC No.1197 of 2026

¶3

Choudhry Baldev Prasad Nanda & Anr.

¶4

…. Petitioner(s)

¶5

Mr. Gopal Prasad Jena, Adv.

¶6

-versus-

¶7

…. State of Odisha & Anr. Opposite Party(s)

¶8

Mr. Tej Kumar, ASC

¶9

CORAM:

¶10

HON’BLE DR.JUSTICE SANJEEB K PANIGRAHI

Order No.

01.

ORDER

20.04.2026

1. This matter is taken up through hybrid arrangement.

¶16

2. By filing the present CRLMC, the Petitioners have prayed for quashing the order of taking cognizance dated 02.04.2025 and 12.05.2025 passed by the learned J.M.F.C.-IV, Bhubaneswar. The Petitioners have also prayed for quashing the charge sheet so also the F.I.R. filed by Opposite Party No.2.

¶17

3. Heard.

¶18

Signature Not Verified

¶19

Digitally Signed Signed by: SIPUN BEHERA Designation: Senior StenographerReason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK Date: 22-Apr-2026 17:28:32

¶20

4. Learned counsel for the Petitioners submits that Petitioner No.1 is a medical practitioner aged about 66 years. On 03.01.2025 at around 9:00 A.M., while he was taking his car out of the gate of his residence, accused Sandeep Panda intentionally and falsely alleged that the vehicle of the

¶21

Page 1 of 6

¶22

Petitioner had hit his leg. On this pretext, the said Sandeep Panda left his scooter and suddenly assaulted the Petitioner in a violent manner, causing grievous injuries to him. Consequently, the Petitioner had to be immediately shifted for medical treatment.

¶23

5. Learned counsel for the Petitioners further submits that during the course of the incident, the mother of the accused, namely Mamata Panda, also came out of her residence and actively assisted Sandeep Panda in the assault. The entire incident has been captured in the CCTV footage installed at the spot, which clearly establishes the sequence of events and the role of the accused persons.

¶24

6. Learned counsel for the Petitioners further contends that on receiving information, the police reached the spot and apprehended Sandeep Panda, who was taken into custody. His bail application was initially rejected by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge (Vigilance), Bhubaneswar on 15.01.2025, taking into consideration the grievous injuries sustained by the petitioner, particularly on the head and face. However, subsequently, the accused was granted bail by this Court in BLAPL No.722 of 2025. co-accused Mamata Panda was Similarly, granted anticipatory bail by this Court in ABLAPL No.3450 of 2025 on 02.05.2025.

¶25

Page 2 of 6

¶26

7. Learned counsel for the Petitioners further contends that the accused Sandeep Panda was arrested from the spot on the date of occurrence itself, i.e., 03.01.2025. However, an FIR was subsequently lodged on the same day by his sisterin-law, Maheswata Patjoshi, against the present Petitioners, after the arrest of the accused, clearly indicating an afterthought and a counterblast to the lawful action taken by the police.

¶27

8. Further, the medical examination of Sandeep Panda conducted on 03.01.2025 prior to his remand to judicial custody clearly records that there were no external injuries on his person. This fact completely demolishes the allegations made in the subsequently lodged FIR.

¶28

9. Learned counsel for the Petitioners further contends that surprisingly, a subsequent medical certificate dated 31.03.2025 has been brought into existence alleging abrasions on the body of Sandeep Panda purportedly on the date of occurrence, i.e., 03.01.2025. Such a delayed and contradictory medical document is inherently unreliable, fabricated and has evidently been created only for the purpose of strengthening a false case.

¶29

10. Moreover, another medical report dated 26.01.2025 from Capital Hospital indicates abrasions on the body of Sandeep Panda, which is in direct contradiction to the initial medical

¶30

Page 3 of 6

¶31

report dated 03.01.2025. These inconsistencies clearly establish manipulation and fabrication of medical evidence at a later stage.

¶32

11. In contrast, the medical examination report of the Petitioner conducted on 03.01.2025 unequivocally establishes that the Petitioner sustained grievous injuries in the incident. This further corroborates the Petitioner’s case that he was the victim of the assault and not the aggressor.

¶33

12. It is further submitted that there was absolutely no cause or provocation on the part of the Petitioner to assault the accused. On the contrary, it was the accused who initiated the attack, which is clearly supported by the CCTV footage. The allegations made in the FIR regarding assault by the petitioner, use of abusive language by his wife, and existence of prior enmity are wholly false, baseless and concocted.

¶34

13. The FIR in question has been lodged with mala fide intention, solely to harass the Petitioner and to create a false defence in response to the lawful arrest of the accused. The same is nothing but an abuse of the process of law and is liable to be quashed.

¶35

14. Learned counsel for the State opposed the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the Petitioners.

¶36

Page 4 of 6

¶37

15. Considering the submissions made on behalf of the learned counsel for the respective parties and on perusal of the available materials on record, this Court is not persuaded by the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the Petitioners to scuttle/terminate the trial at this stage without a thorough examination of the matter.

¶38

16. It is well settled that appreciation of evidence falls within the exclusive domain of the trial court. This Court, in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction under Section 528 of BNSS, cannot undertake such an exercise or prematurely terminate the trial process. The inherent powers under Section 528 of BNSS are to be exercised sparingly, with circumspection and only in cases where it is manifest that there exists a legal bar to the institution or continuation of the proceedings, or where the allegations do not disclose any offence.

¶39

17. In the present case, this Court does not find sufficient ground to quash the criminal proceeding at this stage. However, it is observed that if the Petitioners file an application for discharge before the learned trial Court at the appropriate stage, the same shall be considered in accordance with law. The learned trial Court shall also take into consideration the apparent contradictions between the

¶40

Page 5 of 6

¶41

Sipun

¶42

medical reports dated 03.01.2025 and 26.01.2025, both issued by the same doctor.

¶43

18. This CRLMC is, accordingly, disposed of.

¶44

19. Pending application (s), if any, shall stand disposed of.

¶45

(Dr. Sanjeeb K Panigrahi) Judge

¶46

Page 6 of 6

Choudhry Baldev Prasad Nanda v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Choudhry Baldev Prasad Nanda v. State of Odisha

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

State of Orissa Vs Satyananda Badhei

Sankar Behera Vs State of Odisha

Bidyadhar Dhal Vs State of Odisha

Gourahari Sahu Vs State of Odisha(Vig.)

Pankaj Sahu Vs State of Odisha

Sudhansu Sekhar Rayaguru Vs State of Odisha