IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK CRLMC No.3617 of 2025 Harbinder Singh Deengra ..... Petitioner Represented by Adv. –

M/s. Anup Udaya Senapati, S.K. Sahoo -versus-

Krupasindhu Gahan ..... Opposite Party Represented by Adv. – Mr. Tirth Kumar Sahu CORAM:

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR MOHAPATRA

ORDER

11.12.2025 Order No.

05. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual /Physical Mode).

2. Heard the learned counsel for the Petitioner as well as learned counsel for the Opposite Party. Perused the CRLMC application as well as the prayer made therein.

3. By filing the present application under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., the Accused-Petitioner seeks to invoke the inherent power of this Court to quash the entire criminal proceeding initiated against him at the instance of the Opposite Party-Complainant in 1CC Case No.18 of

2009 pending in the court of learned S.D.J.M., Talcher.

4. Learned counsel for the Petitioner, at the outset, contended that the Opposite Party-Complainant filed 1CC Case No.18 of 2009 before the learned S.D.J.M., Talcher alleging commission of offence punishable under Section 138 of N.I. Act. He further submitted that although the matter had travelled to this Court on different occasions, however the issue raised in this present application was never directly decided by this Court.

5. In course of his argument, learned counsel for the Petitioner, referring to the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Aneeta Hada v. Godfather Travels, reported in (2012) 5 SCC 661, stated before this Court that since the complainant has not impleaded the Company as a party, the compliant petition is not maintainable. On such ground, learned counsel for the Petitioner submitted before this Court that since in the present case the Company has not been arrayed as an accused, the complaint petition is not maintainable. Hence, the entire criminal proceeding arising out of the ICC case is liable to be quashed.

6. Learned counsel for the Opposite Party, on the other hand, objected to the prayer made in the present application. He further submitted that the Petitioner had approached this Court on two occasions by filing CRLMC No.1023 of 2012, which was dismissed by a coordinate Bench on 22.03.2022 due to non-prosecution. Similarly CRLMC No.1375 of 2024 filed by the Petitioner has been dealt with by another Bench and disposed of on 09.01.2025. On perusal of the order dated 09.01.2025, it appears that the learned coordinate Bench refused to interfere with the matter on the ground of conduct of the Petitioner. It has been specifically observed that the Petitioner has successfully prolonged the trial of the complaint case for about 15 years. Hence, the application was disposed of. Learned counsel for the Opposite Party raised objection for quashing of the entire criminal proceeding on the ground that in the compliant case, the Managing Director of the Company has been arrayed as an accused. Therefore, the Company is not required to be impleaded as an accused in this case.

7. On a careful consideration of the present application, it appears that the Petitioner has approached this Court for quashing of the entire criminal proceeding on the ground that the Company has not been arrayed as an accused in terms of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Aneeta Hada’s case (supra). As such, this Court is of the view that the question that has been raised by the Petitioner in the present application is a question of fact and the same law can very well be adjudicated at the time of trial by the trial court.

8. In such view of the matter, this Court is not inclined to interfere in the present proceeding in exercise of its inherent power. However, while disposing of the present CRLMC application, liberty is granted to the Petitioner to raise all the points before the trial court at the time of the trial and the trial court shall do well to consider the same in terms of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Aneeta Hada’s case (s