IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK CRLMC No. 5481 of 2025 (An application under Sections 528 of BNSS, 2023 read with Section 482 of Civil Procedure)

M/S Wellshown Retail LLP. ...… Petitioner -Versus-

State of Odisha ...… Opposite Party ______________________________________________________________

For Petitioner : Mr. C.Mishra, Advocate For Opp. Party : Mr. S.S.Routray, ASC _____________________________________________________________

CORAM:

JUSTICE SASHIKANTA MISHRA

ORDER

20.02.2026 SASHIKANTA MISHRA, J.

The present application has been filed seeking recall of the order dated 03.04.2023 passed in CRLMC No. 1492 of 2023, whereby the FIR in Capital P.S. Case No. 687 dated 29.10.2021 was quashed on the basis of compromise between the opposite party nos. 2, 3 and 4. The petitioner contends that the said order was obtained by fraud, suppression of material facts, at the instance of Opposite Party No.4, who lacked authority to represent the petitioner’s firm at the time of compromise.

2. Heard C. Mishra learned counsel for the petitioner and S.S Routray, learned ASC on the question of admission.

3. Mr. Mishra submits that the Opposite Party No. 4 while working as an employee of the petitioner’s firm was authorised in the alleged FIR in Capital P.S. Case No. 687 dated 29.10.2021 against the Opposite Party Nos. 2 and 3. Subsequently he resigned but suppressing resignation from the company. The earlier application under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. (CRLMC No. 1492 of 2023) was filed by the present Opposite Party Nos. 2 and 3 with prayer to quash the said FIR. Suppressing the fact of his resignation from firm, Opposite Party No. 4 in connivance with the petitioners in the said case (present Opposite Party Nos. 2 and 3) filed a joint application of compromise, considering which this Court disposed of the case accepting the compromise and by quashing the said FIR. This according to Mr. Mishra amounts to playing fraud by the Opposite Party No.4, which was sought to be brought to the notice of this Court in I.A. No. 1428 of 2023 filed in the earlier case. This Court was not inclined as the partners of the firm had not come forward to file the I.A., the present application was however, filed by the partners. Since the fraud committed by the Opposite Party No.4 has resultantly in severe loss to the firm to the tune of Rs. 70-80 lakhs, the order accepting the compromise need to be recalled. 4. On perusal of the materials on record, this Court finds that though allegation of fraud, misrepresentation, and suppression of material facts etc. have been levelled against Opposite Party No. 4, the petitioner has neither stated nor produced any material to demonstrate that it has initiated any criminal or legal proceeding against the persons alleged to have committed such fraud. In matters involving allegations of fraud before the Court, the conduct and bonafide of the party making such allegation assume considerable significance. The absence of any consequential action on part of the petitioner, despite alleging commission of fraud, creates doubt regarding the genuineness of the plea for recall of the earlier order.

5. It is further pertinent to mention that the earlier recall application, being I.A. No. 1428 of 2023 has already been considered and dismissed by order dated 04.07.2025 by this Court and the present petition substantially reiterates the same grounds. Although the present application has now been filed by the Designated Partner, Sanjay Sharma, as opposed to the earlier application filed through one Satish Jha describing himself as ‘Admin’, such change in representation does not materially advance the case of the petitioner. This Court, in its earlier order has already expressed doubts regarding the alleged termination of services of Opposite Party No. 4, and no convincing material has since been placed to repeal such doubt. Significantly, even till date, no material is placed before this Court to show that the petitioner’s firm has taken recours