SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Ori) 40

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
ADITYA KUMAR MOHAPATRA
Chiranjibi Nayak – Appellant
Versus
State of Odisha – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant P.K. Parhi
For the Respondent: B.K. Sahu

Table of Content
1. factual background of the case. (Para 1 , 2 , 3)
2. petitioners argue lack of evidence. (Para 4 , 5 , 6 , 7)
3. opposite party disputes petitioners' claims. (Para 9 , 10 , 11)
4. court outlines dispute and necessity for evidence. (Para 12 , 13)
5. principles governing quashing of proceedings. (Para 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18)
6. examination of evidence fails to establish culpability. (Para 22 , 24)
7. court quashes proceedings against certain petitioners. (Para 26 , 27)
8. conclusion and disposal of applications. (Para 28)

JUDGMENT :

1. The abovementioned CRLMC applications arise out of the self- same F.I.R, which relates to the same incident. Therefore, for the sake of brevity, they are taken together for adjudication. The CRLMC Nos.2832 of 2024 and CRLMC No.1017 of 2024 have been filed with a prayer to quash the impugned order of cognizance dated 14.11.2018, at Annexure-3, passed by the Ld. S.D.J.M.(S), Cuttack as well as to quash the entire criminal proceeding against the Petitioners initiated in S.T. Case No.39 of 2024 corresponding to G.R. Case No.372 of 2018 now pending before the Court of the Learned SDJM(S), Cuttack. Since both the CRLMC applications relate to the sel

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top