IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

CRLREV No.1132 of 2025

Brajabandhu Barik …. Petitioner

Mr. S.K.Baral, Advocate

-Versus-

State of Odisha & others …. Opposite Party

Mr. S.K. Swain, AGA

CORAM:

MR. JUSTICE R.K. PATTANAIK

ORDER

05.01.2026 Order No.

01. 1. Heard Mr. Baral, learned counsel for the petitioner and

Mr. Swain, learned AGA for the State.

2. No notices are issued to opposite party Nos. 4 & 5 as

the matter is disposed of at the stage of admission.

3. Instant revision is filed by the petitioner challenging the impugned order dated 16^th December, 2025 passed in connection with Criminal Misc. Case No. 33 of 2025 by the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Jagatsinghpur in a

proceeding under Section 163 BNSS on the grounds stated.

4. It is submitted to the Court by Mr. Baral, learned counsel for the petitioner that the proceeding under Section 163 BNSS was initiated at the behest of the petitioner with an application received as per Annexure-1 and it was followed by an order of status quo dated 29^th November, 2025 i.e.

Annexure-3 and then, hearing of the matter was fixed to 3^rd January, 2026, however, it was preponed and disposed of on 16^th December, 2025 vide Annexure-4 without notice to the petitioner vacating the order of status quo with the conclusion that the learned court below lacks jurisdiction to maintain the same. The submission is that before any such order on 16^th December, 2025 at Anneuxre-4, an opportunity of hearing should have been provided to the petitioner, hence, he has been prejudiced as a result thereof.

5. Recorded the objection of Mr. Swain, learned AGA for the State.

6. Perused the impugned order at Annexure-4 and it does not reveal anywhere that the petitioner was provided an opportunity of hearing with an application received from the private opposite parties. The impugned order at Annexure-4 reveals that the learned court below held that there is an amicable arrangement between the parties and hence, the property being in jointness and all are the co-owners in possession, it lacks jurisdiction to pass an order of status quo hence, vacated the same.

7. Recording the submission of Mr. Baral, learned counsel for the petitioner and as there is no mention in the impugned order at Annexure-4 about any such opportunity of hearing to have been provided to the petitioner before vacating the order of status quo, the Court is of the view that the impugned order dated 16^th December, 2025 passed therein should be set aside with the restoration of the proceeding for further orders. The Court is also of the view that in case there has been a hearing allowed and disposal of the proceeding in presence of both the sides, the direction as above should not be given effect to. In other words, accepting the plea of the petitioner at its face value and submission of Mr. Baral, learned counsel appearing for him, the Court is of the conclusion that in absence of an opportunity of hearing provided to the petitioner, the learned court below ought not to have vacated the order of status quo preponing the hearing of the matter and disposing it of on 16th December, 2025.

8. Accordingly, it is ordered.

9. In the result, the revision petition stands disposed of with the direction as aforesaid. In case, the learned court below finds that there has been no opportunity of hearing allowed in favour of the petitioner, upon restoration of Criminal Misc. Case No. 33 of 2025, it shall pass appropriate order considering the plea of the petitioner as per and in accordance with law with the rider that the direction as aforesaid shall not be given effect to if such hearing in his presence has taken place. It is also directed that upon such restoration, till final order is passed therein, the parties shall maintain status quo in respect of the property involved and in case, any such implementation of the order of status quo is necessary by process of law, the assistance of opposite party No.3 shall be taken by the petitioner. As a necessary corollary, the imp