Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 22-Apr-2026 16:22:28 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK A.F.R.

CRLMC No.3072 of 2025 (A petition under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.)

Sambhu Nath …. Petitioner(s)

-versus-

Soumya Enterprises, represented by …. Opposite Party(s)

its managing partner Manas Ranjan Jena, Keonjhar & Anr.

Advocates appeared in the case throughHybrid Mode:

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Amlan Mohanty, Adv. For Opposite Party(s) : Mr. Subash Chandra Jena, Adv.

Mr. S.K. Jena, Adv.

Mr. S. Satapathy, Adv.

Mr. S. Sahoo, Adv.

CORAM:

DR. JUSTICE SANJEEB K PANIGRAHI DATE OF HEARING:-05.03.2026 DATE OF JUDGMENT:-31.03.2026 Dr. SanjeebK Panigrahi, J.

1. The petitioner in the present petition challenges the order dated 15.05.2025 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Champua in Criminal Revision Case No. 03 of 2024, whereby the order dated 20.01.2024 passed by the learned J.M.F.C., Barbil in I.C.C. Case No. 21 of 2020 was affirmed.

I. FACTUAL MATRIX OF THE CASE

2. The brief facts of the caseare asfollows:

Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT,

CUTTACK Date: 22-Apr-2026 16:22:28 i. The petitioner/complainant had advanced a friendly loan of Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees Five Lakhs) to the Opposite Parties in the month of January, 2020 due to their urgent business needs, with an assurance to repay the same by March, 2020. In discharge of the said liability, Opposite Party No. 2, in his capacity as Managing Partner of Opposite Party No. 1, issued a post-dated cheque bearing No. 093016 dated 16.03.2020 drawn on Indian Bank, Joda Branch in favour of the petitioner, with instructions to present the same on the due date.

ii. When the complainant presented the said cheque for encashment through Syndicate Bank, Barbil Branch on 16.03.2020, the same was returned unpaid vide bank memorandum dated 08.05.2020 stating that the funds were insufficient.

iii. The petitioner contacted the Opposite Parties and informed them of the dishonour of the cheque, but the Opposite Parties failed to make payment of the said amount.

iv. Thereafter, the petitioner/complainant caused a legal notice to be issued to the Opposite Parties on 14.05.2020 by registered post with A.D., calling upon them to pay the cheque amount within 15 days.

However, the Opposite Parties failed to comply with the said notice.

v. As the Opposite Parties did not make payment, the petitioner filed a complaint under Section 138 of the N.I. Act, which was registered as I.C.C. No. 21 of 2020 before the court of the learned J.M.F.C., Barbil.

vi. Upon filing of the complaint, the sworn statement of the P.O.A.

holder was recorded, and the petitioner proved the documents

Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT,

CUTTACK Date: 22-Apr-2026 16:22:28 relating to issuance of notice. The learned court took cognizance of the offence and issued process against the Opposite Parties.

vii. In response to the summons, the Opposite Parties appeared through counsel and denied the allegations made against them.

viii. To prove his case, the petitioner examined himself as C.W.1, examined the Branch Manager as C.W.2, and relied upon certain documents. The P.O.A. holder was examined-in-chief and was partly cross-examined on 29.09.2023.

ix. During the pendency of the cross-examination of the P.O.A. holder, the Opposite Parties filed a petition on 08.11.2023 seeking to summon the complainant, namely Sambhu Nath, to depose along with the P.O.A. holder. The same was allowed by the learned J.M.F.C., Barbil vide order dated 20.01.2024.

x. Being aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner preferred a revision under Section 397 Cr.P.C. before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Champua in Criminal Revision Case No. 03 of 2024. The revisional court dismissed the revision and affirmed the order of the learned trial court. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner has filed the present petition.

II. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner made the following submissions in support of his contentions:

i. Th