Dismissed¶18

Vibek Ku.Tekeriwal v. State

Orissa HC20 Feb 2026CRLREV/753/2006

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Orissa High Court, Cuttack; CRL. REV. No.753 of 2006; decided 20.02.2026 by Justice V. Narasingh; Petitioner Vibek Kumar Tekeriwal (adv. M. Chand) vs State of Orissa (J. Sahoo, ASC); challenge to cognizance order dated 10.07.2006 of SDJM BBSR in G.R. Case No.4227 of 2003 under Sections 420/406/294/506 IPC after rejection of Section 227 Cr.P.C. discharge plea; counter case inter se parties; cognizance-stage inquiry standards; Bhajan Lal 1992 Supp. (1) SCC 335 stipulations not attracted; revision dismissed, interim order vacated, grounds open at charge-framing stage.

What did the court decide?

At the stage of taking cognizance, the learned Court is not required to undertake a detailed microscopic inquiry into the materials on record. ¶16

Vibek Ku.Tekeriwal Vs State — Cheating and Forgery | Orissa HC (2026)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

¶2

CRL. REV. No.753 of 2006

¶3

Vibek Kumar Tekeriwal … Petitioner

¶4

Mr. M. Chand, Advocate

¶5

-versus-

¶6

State of Orissa

¶7

…. Opposite Party

¶8

Ms. J. Sahoo, ASC

¶9

CORAM: JUSTICE V. NARASINGH ORDER

¶10

Order No.

¶11

20.02.2026

¶12

06. 1. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner and learned counsel for the State.

¶13

Assailing the order dated 10.07.2006 passed by the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, BBSR in G.R. Case No.4227 of 2003 rejecting the petition filed by the Petitioner under Section 227 Cr.P.C. to discharge the Petitioner from the allegation of commission of offence punishable under Section 420/406/294/506 of IPC, this Criminal Revision has been filed.

¶14

The order dated 10.07.2006 taking cognizance under Section 420/406/294/506 of IPC is assailed in this revision, inter alia on the ground there is a counter case inter se between the parties. Oblivious of the same the order taking cognizance is an abuse of process of law.

¶15

Page 1 of 2

¶16

It is trite that at the stage of taking cognizance, the learned Court is not required to undertake a detailed microscopic inquiry into the materials on record.

¶17

In the given facts of the present case keeping in view the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of State of Haryana and others vrs. Bhajan Lal and others, 1992 Supp. (1) SCC 335, this Court is not persuaded to hold that the case comes within any of the stipulations mentioned therein.

¶18

Accordingly, the CRLREV stands dismissed. 8. It is needless to state that it shall be open for the Petitioner to take all grounds available in law at the time of framing of charge, which shall be considered independently without being prejudiced by this Court not entertaining the order of cognizance.

¶19

Registry is requested to intimate this order to the learned Court in seisin.

¶20

Accordingly, the Criminal Revision along with the pending I.As stand disposed of.

¶21

Interim order stands vacated.

¶22

(V. NARASINGH)

¶23

Judge

¶24

Signature Not Verified

¶25

Digitally Signed Signed by: SOUMYA RANJAN SAMAL Designation: Jr. Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa Soumya Date: 23-Feb-2026 16:02:56

¶26

Page 2 of 2

Vibek Ku.Tekeriwal v. State

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vibek Ku.Tekeriwal v. State

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Krushna Chandra Parida Vs Collector, Jajpur

Subash Chandra Pangi Vs State of Odisha

Ramesh Chandra Prusty Vs Dillip Kumar Bhatta

Jitendra Kumar Biswal Vs State of Odisha

R.Akash Behera Vs State of Odisha

Randhir Singh Vs Bala Kumbhar