Dismissed¶43

Niranjan Kalta v. Upendra Behera

Orissa HC15 May 2026CRLMC/606/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Section 138 N.I. Act cheque-dishonour complaint (ICC Case No.15 of 2024, J.M.F.C. (LR) Sonepur); accused's petition to mark advocacy licence (Bar Council) and experience certificate (Kantamal Bar Association) as exhibits rejected; professional status of accused held not a fact in issue and irrelevant/inadmissible to Section 138 ingredients; marking defence documents would widen trial scope and cause delay; CRLMC No.606 of 2026 dismissed; interim order vacated; relevancy and admissibility of defence documents under Indian Evidence Act; Section 33 Advocate Act, 1961 and Bar Council of India Act referenced in submissions.

What did the court decide?

None — the CRLMC was rejected; interim order, if any, passed earlier stands vacated. ¶43

Niranjan Kalta Vs Upendra Behera — Cheque Dishonour | Orissa HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

None — the CRLMC was rejected; interim order, if any, passed earlier stands vacated.

¶43

Issue for consideration

Whether the documents sought to be marked by the accused (his advocacy licence and experience certificate) are relevant and admissible in the Section 138 N.I. Act complaint case — i.e., whether the professional qualification and status of the accused as an Advocate has any nexus with the essential ingredients required to be proved in the offence.

¶41

Court's answer

The professional qualification and status of the accused as an Advocate is not a fact in issue and has no nexus with the essential ingredients required to be proved in an offence under Section 138 of the N.I. Act.

¶41

Ratio / Principle

Permitting the accused to mark such documents would unnecessarily widen the scope of the trial, cause avoidable delay, and divert the proceedings from the real issues to be adjudicated.

¶41

Key takeaways

The documents sought to be marked by the accused are held to be irrelevant and inadmissible.ratio¶41

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Orissa High Court (Dr. Sanjeeb K Panigrahi, J.), CRLMC No.606 of 2026, decided 15.05.2026. In a Section 138 N.I. Act complaint (ICC Case No.15 of 2024, learned J.M.F.C. (LR), Sonepur) arising from a dishonoured cheque of Rs.65,000/- kept outstanding for cement and iron rods supplied, the accused-petitioner sought acceptance and marking of his advocacy licence (Orissa State Bar Council, Cuttack / Bar Council of Odisha) and experience certificate (Bar Association, Kantamal) as exhibits, contending they would disprove the complainant's allegation that he was a businessman transacting in materials and that the cheque arose in course of business. The trial court had rejected that petition by order dated 13.01.2026. The High Court held that the professional qualification and status of the accused as an Advocate is not a fact in issue and has no nexus with the essential ingredients required to be proved in an offence under Section 138 of the N.I. Act; permitting such marking would unnecessarily widen the scope of the trial, cause avoidable delay and divert the proceedings from the real issues; accordingly the documents were held irrelevant and inadmissible. The CRLMC stands rejected and any interim order stands vacated.

¶1

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 26-May-2026 16:09:47

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK CRLMC No.606 of 2026

¶3

(From the order dated 13.01.2026 passed by the learned J.M.F.C. (LR), Sonepur in ICC Case No.15 of 2024)

¶4

Niranjan Kalta …. Petitioner (s)

¶5

-versus-

¶6

…. Upendra Behera Opposite Party (s)

¶7

Advocates appeared in the case through Hybrid Mode :

¶8

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Amit Prasad Bose, Adv. : For Opposite Party (s) Ms. Binapani Tripathy, Adv.

¶9

CORAM:

¶10

DR. JUSTICE SANJEEB K PANIGRAHI

¶11

DATE OF HEARING:-19.03.2026 DATE OF JUDGMENT:-15.05.2026

¶12

Dr. Sanjeeb K Panigrahi, J.

¶13

1. The Petitioner, in this CRLMC, has challenged the order dated 13.01.2026 passed by the learned J.M.F.C. (LR), Sonepur in ICC Case No.15 of 2024 rejecting his petition for acceptance and marking of his documents i.e. the original license issued by the Orissa State Bar Council, Cuttack and the experience certificate issued by the Bar Association, Kantamal as exhibits.

¶14

I. FACTUAL MATRIX OF THE CASE:

¶15

2. The brief facts of the case are as follows:

¶16

Page 1

¶17

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 26-May-2026 16:09:47

¶18

(i) The complainant/ Opposite Party filed a complaint case under Section 138 of the N.I. Act alleging inter alia that the accused/ petitioner in need of cement and iron rod had approached the complainant. The complainant being neighbour of the accused supplied material keeping cheque for an amount of Rs.65,000/(Rupees Sixty-five Thousand) as outstanding towards part payment. However, the said cheque was. When the cheque was dishonoured, the complainant/ Opposite Party issued notice for repayment of money by the accused. Being failed to get any response, the complainant filed complainant case which was registered as ICC No.15 of 2024 of the court of the learned J.M.F.C. (LR), Sonepur.

¶19

(ii) The learned trial court took cognizance of the offence under Section 138 of the N.I. Act against the petitioner. During trial, the petitioner filed a petition to accept his advocacy license issued by Bar Council of Odisha and Advocate experience certificate issued by Kantamal Bar Association as relevant documents and mark as exhibits from the side of the accused. The Opposite Party filed objection to the said petition under stating that such documents have no relevancy with the ingredients of Section 138 of the N.I. Act.

¶20

(iii) The learned trial court rejected the said petition of the petitioner vide order dated 13.01.2026 without considering its relevancy that the said documents would reveal whether and in what relation the Opposite Party had given material.

¶21

Page 2

¶22

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 26-May-2026 16:09:47

¶23

(iv) Being aggrieved, the Petitioner is constrained to approach this Court by way of the present CRLMC seeking appropriate relief.

¶24

II. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER:

¶25

3. The learned counsel for the Petitioner earnestly made the following submissions in support of his contentions:

¶26

(i) In order to dispel such allegation made by the Opposite Party in the complaint petition, the petitioner filed a petition to produce certain documents as stated above. The reason behind producing such documents is as follows:

¶27

(a) By producing such documents, the petitioner wants to justify the court below that the petitioner/ accused is not doing any other profession as envisaged under Section 33 of the Advocate Act, 1961 . Moreover, as per the Bar Council of India Act and Rules thereunder, by producing the enrolled Advocate license, the plea raised by the Opposite Party in the complaint can be dispelled with. (b)The question of determination of punishment under Section 138 of the NI Act is altogether a different matter, but unless the allegations of the complainant/ Opposite Party that the petitioner/accused is a businessman cannot be distinguished without exhibiting such documents.

¶28

(c) The complainant has to justify that the cheque was issued in course of a business transaction and to nullify such averments, marking of the documents from the side of the accused is highly essential.

¶29

Page 3

¶30

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 26-May-2026 16:09:47

¶31

(ii) Due of the aforesaid reasons, unless the accused is given the liberty of producing the documents as a defence plea, the petitioner would be prejudiced in the court below and would lose a substantial right of putting up a defence to dispel the allegation made in the complaint petition by the complainant/ Opposite Party.

¶32

(iii) Therefore, it is contended that the present petition filed by the accused/ Petitioner may be allowed and the trial court may be directed to mark the documents issued by the statutory authority as exhibits for effective adjudication of 1CC Case No.l5 of 2024.

¶33

III. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE OPPOSITE PARTY:

¶34

4. Per contra , the learned counsel for the Opposite Party earnestly made the submission that the present CRLMC is not maintainable before this Court and deserves to be rejected in limine.

¶35

5. He further submitted that documents sought to be marked by the accused have no relevance to the ingredients of an offence under Section 138 of the N.I. Act and, thus, are wholly irrelevant for just decision of the case. It was further contended that as per the Indian Evidence Act, only relevant facts are admissible in evidence and irrelevant facts cannot be brought on record.

¶36

6. Accordingly, it is contended that the prayer made by the petitioner may be rejected.

¶37

Page 4

¶38

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 26-May-2026 16:09:47

¶39

IV. COURT’S REASONING AND ANALYSIS:

¶40

7. Heard Learned Counsel for parties and perused the documents placed before this Court.

¶41

8. Upon perusal of the records and on consideration of the submissions made by the parties, it is found that the professional qualification and status of the accused as an Advocate is not a fact in issue nor does it have any nexus with the essential ingredients required to be proved in an offence under Section 138 of the N.I. Act. Further, permitting the accused for marking of such documents would unnecessarily widen the scope of the trial and cause avoidable delay. It would further divert the proceedings from the real issues to be adjudicated. Hence, the documents sought to be marked are held to be irrelevant and inadmissible.

¶42

V. CONCLUSION:

¶43

9. In view of the foregoing analysis and upon an anxious and careful consideration of the material facts and circumstances of the case, the CRLMC filed by the accused/ Petitioner stands rejected

¶44

10. Interim order, if any, passed earlier stands vacated.

¶45

(Dr. Sanjeeb K Panigrahi) Judge

¶46

Orissa High Court, Cuttack, Dated 15^th May, 2026/

¶47

Page 5

Niranjan Kalta v. Upendra Behera

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Niranjan Kalta v. Upendra Behera

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kumaresh Barik Vs Shashadhar Panda

Rajot Patra@Rajat Kumar Patra Vs State of Odisha

Hemanta Kumar Panigrahi Vs State of Odisha

Umesh Kumar Ramani Vs State of Odisha

Suresh Kumar Mohapatra @ Suria Vs State of Odisha

Tutu Debanath Vs State of Odisha