Disposed¶5

Kaushik Mandal v. State of Odisha

Orissa HC13 Jan 2026CRLMC/156/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

CRLMC No.156 of 2025; High Court of Orissa at Cuttack; Justice Sibo Sankar Mishra; decided 13.01.2026; cognizance challenge; order dated 29.06.2022; J.M.F.C. (Cog-III), Bhubaneswar; C.T. Case No.3481 of 2016; Sections 409/408/420/34 IPC; contention that Section 406/409 cannot be coupled with Section 420 IPC; Arshad Neyaz Khan vrs. State of Jharkhand & Another; Delhi Race Club (1940) Limited vrs. State of Uttar Pradesh (2024) 10 SCC 690; charge not yet framed; liberty to raise points at stage of framing of charge; petition disposed of, not quashed; petitioner Kaushik Mandal; counsel Lingaraj Sarangi; ASC Suvalaxmi Devi for State of Odisha.

What did the court decide?

Liberty to the petitioner to raise all points, including the points raised before this Court relying on the cited judgments, at the stage of framing of charges. ¶5

Kaushik Mandal Vs State of Odisha — Cheating and Forgery | Orissa HC (2026)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

¶2

CRLMC No.156 of 2025

¶3

Kaushik Mandal

¶4

…. Petitioner(s)

¶5

Mr. Lingaraj Sarangi, Advocate

¶6

-versus-

¶7

State of Odisha and others

¶8

…. Opposite Party(s)

¶9

Ms. Suvalaxmi Devi, ASC

¶10

CORAM: JUSTICE SIBO SANKAR MISHRA

ORDER

Order No.

02.

1. Heard.

13.01.2026

2. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 29.06.2022

¶17

passed by the learned J.M.F.C. (Cog-III), Bhubaneswar in C.T.

¶18

Case No.3481 of 2016, whereby the learned trial Court has taken

¶19

cognizance of offences under Sections 409/408/420/34 of I.P.C. against him.

¶20

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner by relying upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Arshad Neyaz Khan vrs. State of Jharkhand & Another and in the case of

¶21

Delhi Race Club (1940) Limited and others vrs. State of Uttar

¶22

Pradesh reported in (2024) 10 SCC 690 submitted that the offence

¶23

either Section 406 or Section 409 of I.P.C. cannot be coupled with

¶24

the offence under Section 420 of I.P.C. Hence, the order of

¶25

Page 1 of 2

¶26

cognizance taken by the trial Court under Sections 409/420 of I.P.C. is bad in law.

¶27

4. On specific query from the Court, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that although the learned trial Court has taken cognizance vide impugned order dated 29.06.2022, however, charge has not yet been framed. Therefore, he seeks liberty to withdraw the present petition to raise all the points before the trial Court at the stage of framing of charge.

¶28

5. Accordingly, the CRLMC is disposed of with a liberty to

¶29

the petitioner to raise all the points including the points raised before this Court by relying upon the judgments as cited above at the stage of framing of charges.

¶30

(S.S. Mishra) Judge

¶31

Swarna

¶32

Signature Not Verified

¶33

Digitally Signed Signed by: SWARNAPRAVA DASH Designation: Senior Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa Date: 13-Jan-2026 19:43:16

¶34

Page 2 of 2

Kaushik Mandal v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kaushik Mandal 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Naresh Maharana Vs State of Odisha

Santosh Kumar Barik @ Santosh Bariki Vs State of Odisha

Gourav Kumar Agrawal@Kallu Vs Anil Kumar Agrawal

Ranjit Vs State

Bhima Vs State

Susanta Behera Vs State of Odisha