Pranaya Kumar @ Gopal Singh Vs Manoj Kumar Agrawal — Cheque Dishonour | Orissa HC (2026)

Pranaya Kumar @ Gopal Singh Vs Manoj Kumar Agrawal — Cheque Dishonour | Orissa HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Withdrawal permitted; CRLMC disposed of as withdrawn upon counsel's memo stating the petitioner did not wish to proceed; trial court directed to proceed in accordance with law, noting dismissal of Criminal Revision No. 408 of 2012 and the remaining unpaid sum of Rs.3,00,000/-.

Issue for consideration

Whether the warrant-of-imprisonment order dated 06.04.2021 passed by the learned SDJM, Panposh, Rourkela in ICC No. 490 of 2010, issued after expiry of the extended deadlines for payment of the balance compensation, should be challenged/rescinded (issue left undecided as the application was withdrawn).

Ratio / Principle

As the petitioner, through his counsel's memo, did not want to proceed with the application, the Court disposed of the CRLMC as withdrawn.

Key takeaways

The learned trial court was directed to proceed in accordance with law, keeping in view that Criminal Revision No. 408 of 2012 had been dismissed by this Court and that an amount of Rs.3,00,000/- (Rupees Three Lakhs only) remains to be paid.ratio¶18

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

CRLMC No. 155 of 2022 (High Court of Orissa at Cuttack — Order dated 19.02.2026) (Miss Justice Savitri Ratho): Pranaya Kumar @ Gopal Singh (Petitioner) v. Manoj Kumar Agarwal (Opposite Party). Filed challenging the warrant-of-imprisonment order dated 06.04.2021 of the learned SDJM, Panposh, Rourkela in ICC No. 490 of 2010, issued after expiry of the extended deadlines for payment of the balance compensation of Rs.8,00,000/- imposed by this Court's order dated 13.09.2019 in CRLREV No. 408 of 2012, wherein the conviction under section 138 of the N.I. Act was confirmed and the one-year simple-imprisonment sentence was set aside; time had been thrice extended (orders dated 02.03.2020, 26.06.2020 and 03.12.2020). Counsel filed a memo stating the petitioner did not wish to proceed; the Court disposed of the CRLMC as withdrawn and directed the trial court to proceed in accordance with law, noting that Criminal Revision No. 408 of 2012 stood dismissed and Rs.3,00,000/- remained payable (Rs.5,00,000/- already deposited and withdrawn by the Opposite Party).

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK CRLMC No. 155 of 2022

Pranaya Kumar @ Gopal Singh

Manoj Kumar Agarwal

….. Petitioner Ms. S. C. Hanuman, Advocate on behalf of Mr. S. K. Singh, Advocate -versus-

….. Opp. Parties Mr. Prayash Mohanty, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Gouri Mohan Rath, Advocate

CORAM:

HON’BLE MISS JUSTICE SAVITRI RATHO ORDER 19.02.2026

Order No.

(Through hybrid Mode)

This CRLMC has been filed challenging the order dated 06.04.2021 passed by the learned SDJM, Panposh, Rourkela in ICC No. 490 of 2010.

Ms. S. C. Hanuman, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Mr. S. K. Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner files a memo signed by Mr. S. K. Singh, learned counsel where it is stated that the petitioner does not want to proceed in this application so it may be permitted to be withdrawn.

Mr. Haripad Mohanty, learned counsel for the Opposite Party submits that while confirming the conviction of the Petitioner under section 138 of the N.I. Act in CRLREV No. 408 of 2012 by order dated 13.09.2019, this Court taking into account the payments already made by the Petitioner, set aside the order of sentence directing the accused to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year and directed the balance amount of Rs.8,00,000/- would

Page 1 of 2

be paid within a period of four months failing which he would undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months. But he did not pay the compensation within the period as directed by this Court vide order dated 13.09.2019 and prayed for extension of time. In I.A. No. 144 of 2020, this Court had extended time for making the payment for further period by three months vide order dated 02.03.2020. The time was further extended for further period of three months vide order dated 26.06.2020 and by order dated 03.12.2020, the time was again extended for a period of four months. In the meanwhile, the period of four months has expired but the Petitioner has not paid the entire balance amount for which warrant of imprisonment has been issued against the Petitioner by learned SDJM, Panposh, Rourkela vide order dated 06.04.2021.

It is stated by Mr. Mohanty, learned counsel for the Opposite Party that in the meanwhile, the Petitioner has deposited Rs.5,00,000/- before this Court which has been withdrawn by the Opposite Party. Further amount of Rs.3,00,000/- (Rupees Three Lakhs only) remains to be paid.

Since the petitioner wants to withdraw the CRLMC, the CRLMC is disposed of as withdrawn.

The learned trial Court is directed to proceed in accordance with law keeping in view that the Criminal Revision No. 408 of 2012 had been dismissed by this Court and an amount of Rs.3,00,000/- (Rupees Three Lakhs only) remains to be paid.

(Savitri Ratho) Judge

Subhalaxmi Signature Not Verified

Digitally Signed Signed by: SUBHALAXMI PRIYADARSHANI SAHOO Designation: Senior Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: Orissa High Court, Cuttack Date: 20-Feb-2026 19:04:54

Page 2 of 2