A criminal court may correct procedural lapses, such as an omission to issue process for an offence of which cognizance was duly taken, provided such action does not constitute a substantive review of a final order on merits, as the statutory bar applies only to final judgments.

Dr. Sanjeeb K Panigrahi, J.

1. The Petitioners, who are the accused persons in I.C.C. Case No. 6707 of 2022 instituted by Opposite Party No. 2, have filed the present petition seeking quashing of the orders dated 15.11.2025 and 28.11.2025 passed by the learned J.M.F.C.-IV, Bhubaneswar.

I. FACTUAL MATRIX OF THE CASE:

2. The brief facts of the case are as follows:

i. On 28.11.2022, Opposite Party No. 2, as the complainant, filed a complaint against her husband and in-laws, being I.C.C. Case No. 6707 of 2022, before the learned J.M.F.C.-IV (Cognizance Taking), Bhubaneswar, alleging commission of offences punishable under Sections 498-A , 294, 307, 323, 420, 506, 507 read with Section 34 IPC along with Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 against the Petitioners, along with a prayer to send the complaint under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. to the I.I.C., Laxmisagar P.S., Bhubaneswar for registration as an FIR.

ii. By order dated 05.12.2022, the learned Magistrate declined the said prayer, observing that the requirements under Sections 154(1) and 154(3) Cr.P.C., as referred to in Priyanka Srivastava & Anr. v. State of U.P.¹2015 (6) SCC 287., had not been complied with, and posted the matter for recording of the initial statement of the complainant.

iii. Subsequently, the complainant filed an affidavit described as “initial evidence affidavit” affirmed before a Notary Public. The learned Magistrate proceeded to consider the same and conducted an inquiry under Section 202 Cr.P.C. On 03.01.2023, the statement of one NabaghanaMohanty was recorded. Thereafter, the inquiry was closed upon a memo filed by the complainant. By order dated 10.01.2023, cognizance was taken under Sections 498-A , 294, 307, 323, 420, 506, 507/34 IPC and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, and summons were issued to the Petitioners.

iv. Petitioners Nos. 2 to 4 approached this Court in ABLAPL No. 932 of 2023 seeking anticipatory bail, which was disposed of. The said order was challenged before the Supreme Court in SLP (Crl.) No. 2530 of 2023, wherein, by order dated 28.02.2023, notice was issued and interim protection from arrest was granted, with a direction to appear before the trial court as and when required.

v. CRLMC No. 1356 of 2023 filed by Petitioner No. 1 was disposed of by order dated 12.04.2023 granting liberty to surrender before the court below and seek bail. The said order was also challenged before the Supreme Court in SLP (Crl.) No. 5354 of 2023. Both SLPs were subsequently dismissed.

vi. In the meantime, by order dated 12.03.2023, the learned Magistrate directed issuance of notice to the accused persons in respect of offences under Sections 498-A , 294, 323, 420, 506, 507/34 IPC and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. Petitioners Nos. 2 to 4 appeared through counsel. Non-bailable warrants were issued against Petitioner No. 1, which were subsequently recalled. By order dated 23.11.2023, a petition relating to Section 307 IPC was disposed of. Thereafter, by order dated 02.05.2024, an application under Section 205 Cr.P.C. was allowed, dispensing with the personal appearance of the Petitioners, and the case was posted for evidence before charge.

vii. Subsequently, upon the dismissal of the SLPs and the vacation of interim protection, and the same being brought to the notice of the learned Magistrate, the matter continued before the court below.

viii. By order dated 15.11.2025, the learned Magistrate observed that the deletion of Section 307 IPC was