Disposed¶27

Kumaresh Barik v. Shashadhar Panda

Criminal Miscellaneous (CRLMC) – Quashing

Orissa HC14 May 2026CRLMC/316/2026

Download

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Orissa High Court, Cuttack; CRLMC No. 316 of 2026; decided 14.05.2026 by Dr. Sanjeeb K Panigrahi; Kumaresh Barik v. Shshadhar Panda & Anr.; quashing of S.D.J.M., Bhadrak order dated 26.09.2025 rejecting amendment petition dated 25.06.2025 in I.C.C. Case No.130 of 2024; correction of typographical error in cheque amount and cheque date (13.02.2024 typed as 13.03.2024); amendment allowed as non-prejudicial to opposite party; order set aside; CRLMC disposed of.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order dated 26.09.2025 rejecting the amendment petition was set aside, and the Petitioner was directed to approach the learned S.D.J.M., Bhadrak afresh with an amendment petition, which the said court shall accept and pass order in accordance with law. ¶27

Kumaresh Barik Vs Shashadhar Panda — Orissa HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK CRLMC No. 316 of 2026

¶2

Kumaresh Barik

¶3

..…... Petitioner(s) Mr. Satyaban Sahoo, Adv.

¶4

-Versus-

¶5

Shshadhar Panda & Anr.

¶6

……. Opposite Party (s) Ms. Sarita Moharana, ASC

¶7

CORAM:

¶8

DR. JUSTICE SANJEEB K PANIGRAHI

ORDER

14.05.2026

Order No.

This matter is taken up through hybrid arrangement.

¶14

In filing the present CRLMC, the Petitioner has prayed for quashing of the order dated 26.09.2025 passed by the learned S.D.J.M., Bhadrak in 1CC Case No.130 of 2024 under Annexure-1. Apart from the above, the Petitioner has also sought for a direction to the learned S.D.J.M., Bhadrak to allow the amendment petition dated 25.06.2025 filed by him under Annexure-6 and to carry out necessary corrections mentioned in the amendment petition as per schedule given within a stipulated time.

¶15

Signature Not Verified

¶16

Learned counsel for the Petitioner had filed two separate complaint cases before the learned S.D.J.M., Bhadrak bearing

¶17

Digitally Signed Signed by: LITARAM MURMU Reason: Authentication Location: OHC Date: 18-May-2026 17:26:36

¶18

¶19

I.C.C. Case Nos.50 of 2024 and 130 of 2024. He further submits

¶20

that during the course of hearing, the Petitioner came to know that there is some typographical error in those complaint petitions as well as evidence on affidavit regarding total quantum of cheque amount and the date of the cheque dishonored in bank. Therefore, the Petitioner had filed amendment application dated 25.06.2025 for correction of the said typographical error. However, the said amendment petition has been rejected by the learned court below vide order dated 26.09.2025.

¶21

Learned counsel for the Petitioner further contends that the date of the cheque i.e. 13.02.2024 is correct and in the complaint petition the date has been wrongly typed as 13.03.2024, which is minor typographical error and the amendment of such mistake does not prejudiced to the Opposite Party.

¶22

In such view of the matter and considering the submission made by the learned counsel for the Petitioner, this Court is of the view that, if the petition for amendment is allowed it shall not cause any prejudiced to the Opposite Party. Hence, the view taken by the learned court below vide order dated 26.09.2025 in ICC Case No.130 of 2024 cannot be accepted. Accordingly, the order dated 26.09.2025 passed by the learned S.D.J.M., Bhadrak in I.C.C. Case No.130 of 2024 is set aside. The Petitioner is directed to approach before the learned S.D.J.M., Bhadrak with an amendment

¶23

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: LITARAM MURMU Reason: Authentication Location: OHC Date: 18-May-2026 17:26:36

¶24

¶25

petition. In such event, the said court shall accept the same and

¶26

pass order in accordance with law.

¶27