IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK CRLREV No.356 of 2025 Niranjan Jena …. Petitioner Mr. S. K. Dwibedi, Advocate -Versus-

Bishnu Prasad Mohapatra & …. Opposite Parties another Mr. B. Mohanty, Advocate (O.P. No.1) Mr. P.P. Behera, Advocate (O.P. No.2)

CORAM:

MR. JUSTICE R.K. PATTANAIK

ORDER

17.12.2025 Order No.

08. 1. Heard learned counsel for the respective parties.

2. Instant revision petition is filed by the petitioner assailing the correctness of the impugned order dated 2^nd June, 2025 passed in connection with 1.C.C. No.627 of 2021 as at Annexure-1 by the learned J.M.F.C.-III (Cog. Taking), Cuttack on the grounds stated therein.

3. Mr. Dwibedi, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the learned court below is grossly at fault in discharging the opposite parties in terms of Section 245(2) Cr.P.C. in absence of any evidence before charge. The submission is that no evidence was received from the side of the petitioner and in absence of the same, discharge under Section 245(2) Cr.P.C. is not permissible and in support of such contention, a decision of the Apex Court in Ajaya Kumar Ghose Vrs. State of Jharkhand & another (2009) 43 OCR (SC) 228 is placed reliance on. The further submission is that the learned court below directed supply of a copy of the complaint and other documents filed therewith in terms of Section 207 Cr.P.C. and it was complied with and in the objection to such an application from the side of the opposite parties, while demanding supply of complaint, the petitioner requested for a direction to call for Bank statements and without disposing of the same, it was followed by the order of discharge under Section 245(2) Cr.P.C. According to Mr. Dwibedi, learned counsel, there has been no evidence received from the side of the petitioner and the opposite parties as a result have been discharged by the impugned order dated 2^nd June, 2025 i.e. Annexure-1, which is not legally tenable and hence, liable to be interfered with and set at naught.

4. Mr. Behera, learned counsel for opposite party No.2, on the other hand, submits that the petitioner did not lead evidence despite ample opportunity provided as the proceeding in 1.C.C. No.627 of 2021 suffered number of adjournments as revealed from the order sheets of the learned court below. Furthermore, the submission is that the learned court below did possess the power to discharge the opposite parties in terms of Section 245(2) Cr.P.C. at any stage even before receipt of evidence under Section 244 thereof, hence, rightly passed the impugned order at Annexure-1. In support of the contention advanced, Mr. Behera, learned counsel cited a decision of this Court in Agadhu Das Vrs. Baban Parida and others 1987 Criminal Law Journal 555 and other case laws. The submission is that a court has the jurisdiction to discharge an accused, which is not barred in view of Section 245(2) Cr.P.C as the language employed therein is to the effect that nothing in sub section(1) shall be deemed to prevent a Magistrate from discharging the accused at any previous stage of the case, if for the reasons to be recorded by such Magistrate, who considers the charge to be groundless. The contention is that the exercise of jurisdiction while discharging the opposite parties is in accordance with law and as per Section 245(2) Cr.P.C. and therefore, the impugned order dated 2^nd June, 2025 at Annexure-1 does not suffer from any legal infirmity.

5. On perusal of the order sheets as at Flag-F, it is made to reveal that on 31^st July, 2024, the learned court below directed compliance of Section 207 Cr.P.C. and thereafter, proceeded to fix the hearing on 17^th August, 2024 for evidence before charge and on the date fixed, received the application under Section

245 Cr.P.C and it was finally disposed of vide Annexure-1.

6. In course of hearing, Mr. Behera, learned counsel for opposite party No.2 would submit that the petitioner is at default in leading evidence and that apart, the learned court below found th