Disposed¶20

Harish Ch.Dash v. State

Orissa HC29 Jan 2026CRLMC/1537/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Orissa High Court order dated 29.01.2026 (Miss Justice Savitri Ratho) disposing of CRLMC No. 1537 of 2009 after more than 15 years' pendency; interim stay (granted 11.09.2009 in Misc. Case No. 1223 of 2009) of ICC Case No. 417 of 2008 before SDJM Puri (cognizance 22.12.2008 under Sections 323/341/448/354/506/34 IPC; personal appearance dispensed under Section 205 Cr.P.C) ended by disposal; petitioner free to contend in trial court; counsel advised to write by speed post rather than post card; CRLMC earlier dismissed against Opposite Party No. 2 on 23.03.2017 per peremptory order of 15.04.2014.

What did the court decide?

The CRLMC was disposed of rather than kept pending; the petitioner was granted liberty to raise his contentions in the trial Court, if so advised; and a copy of the order was directed to be sent to the learned SDJM, Puri forthwith.

Harish Ch.Dash Vs State — Orissa HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶20

Issue for consideration

Whether CRLMC No. 1537 of 2009, through which interim stay of proceedings in ICC Case No. 417 of 2008 had been obtained, should continue to be kept pending before this Court, given that the underlying case of the year 2008 is posted for evidence before charge on 03.02.2026 and has lain before the Court for more than 15 years. +1 more

¶19

Court's answer

Not inclined to keep the CRLMC pending any further, considering the report of the learned SDJM, Puri that the case is posted to 03.02.2026 for evidence before charge, especially when the case is of the year 2008 and has remained pending before this Court for more than 15 years.

¶19

Ratio / Principle

The petitioner is left at liberty to raise his contentions in the trial Court, if he is so advised, following disposal of the CRLMC.

¶21

Key takeaways

Passing observation on professional practice: when a counsel is trying to contact a litigant, a letter shall be sent by registered post (now speed post); sending of a post card is of no consequence or of no use.obiter¶14

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

CRLMC No. 1537 of 2009 — High Court of Orissa at Cuttack — Order dated 29.01.2026 by Hon'ble Miss Justice Savitri Ratho (through hybrid mode). Petitioners Harish Chandra Dash, Golak @ Golak Bihari Das and Sr. K. Prasad, accused in ICC Case No. 417 of 2008 (cognizance taken on 22.12.2008 by the learned SDJM, Puri under Sections 323/341/448/354/506/34 IPC, with process issued; personal appearance of the accused dispensed with on 03.03.2009 under Section 205 Cr.P.C and record transferred to the then JMFC, Puri for prosecution evidence before charge), had secured interim stay of the trial proceedings on 11.09.2009 in Misc. Case No. 1223 of 2009; the CRLMC stood dismissed as against Opposite Party No. 2 on 23.03.2017 pursuant to a peremptory order dated 15.04.2014 requiring requisites for admission and stay notice within four weeks. On a status report dated 21.01.2026 showing the trial posted to 03.02.2026 for evidence before charge, and noting the case of 2008 had remained before the High Court for more than 15 years, the Court disposed of the CRLMC, left the petitioner at liberty to raise his contentions in the trial Court, and directed a copy of the order to the learned SDJM, Puri. In passing, the Court observed that a post card is 'of no consequence' for contacting litigants and that counsel should send letters by registered post (now speed post).

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK CRLMC No. 1537 of 2009

¶2

1.Harish Chandra Dash 2. Golak @ Golak Bihari Das

¶3

3. Sr. K. Prasad

¶4

….. Petitioners

¶5

Mr. Radharaman Dasnayak, Advocate on behalf of Dr. Gangadhar Tripathi, Advocate -versus-

¶6

The State and another

¶7

….. Opp. Parties Mr. S. J. Mohanty, A.S.C.

¶8

CORAM:

¶9

HON’BLE MISS JUSTICE SAVITRI RATHO ORDER

¶10

29.01.2026

¶11

Order No. (Through hybrid Mode)

¶12

09.

¶13

Mr. R. Dasnayak, learned counsel submits that he has sent a post card to the petitioner and there has been no response for which he may be granted some time to contact him.

¶14

It is expected that when a counsel is trying to contact a litigant, a letter shall be sent by registered post (now speed post). Sending of a post card is of no consequence or is of no use.

¶15

Perused the status report dated 21.01.2026 of the learned SDJM, Puri, ICC Case No. 417 of 2008, where it is stated that on 22.12.2008, cognizance of offences punishable under Section 323/341/448/354/506/34 of the IPC was taken and process was issued against the accused persons. On 13.02.2009, the accused persons appeared through their counsel. On 03.03.2009, personal appearance of the accused persons had been dispensed with under Section 205 of the Cr.P.C and the record was transferred to the Court of the then learned JMFC, Puri fixing for prosecution evidence before charge. On 20.09.2010, proceeding of the case was adjourned

¶16

Page 1 of 2

¶17

awaiting further intimation pursuant to the order dated 11.09.2009 of the Court passed in Misc. Case No. 1223 of 2009 arising out of CRLMC No. 1537 of 2009. Now, the case is adjourned to 03.02.2026 for evidence before charge.

¶18

Perusal of the order sheets in the case reveals that in Misc. Case No. 1223 of 2009 interim stay of further proceeding in I.C.C. Case No. 417 of 2008 pending in the court of learned S.D.J.M., Puri had been granted on 11.09.2009. Thereafter, the CRLMC was dismissed on 23.03.2017 as against Opposite Party No.2 pursuant to a peremptory order dated 15.04.2014 passed by this Court which had directed that if requisites for issuance of admission and stay notice on Opposite Party No.2 with correct address shall not file within four weeks, the CRLMC shall stand dismissed against Opposite Party No.2.

¶19

Considering the report of the learned SDJM, Puri that the case is posted to 03.02.2026 for evidence before charge, I am not inclined to keep this CRLMC pending any further, especially when the case is of the year 2008 and it has remained pending before this Court for more than 15 years.

¶20