Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Ori) 3304
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
Sanjeeb K Panigrahi, J
Subash Chandra Panda – Appellant
Versus
State of Odisha – Respondent
CRLMC No. 2866 of 2025
Important Points
Subject
Criminal Law - Procedural Law
Act Referred
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita: S.528
Indian Penal Code: S.498A, S.294, S.323, S.406, S.506, S.34
Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005: S.12
Dowry Prohibition Act: S.4
Headnote
Facts of the case:
The Petitioner sought to quash an order by the Sessions Court which had held that an order by the Magistrate (warning litigants against filing frivolous bail cancellation petitions) was a non-interlocutory order, thereby making it subject to revision. The accused contended the Magistrate's order was merely procedural.
Findings of Court:
The High Court clarified that cautionary observations regarding the filing of future frivolous petitions do not foreclose a party's right to seek genuine legal relief. Such observations do not constitute a final determination or affect substantive rights; therefore, the order is interlocutory and the revision application was not maintainable.
Issues: Whether the Magistrate's order warning against filing frivolous petitions is an 'interlocutory order' under Section 397(2) Cr.P.C. that bars criminal revision.
Ratio Decidendi: An order that does not dispose of the final rights of the parties and is merely procedural remains an interlocutory order, even if it cautions parties against future abuse of process, and such orders are not revisable.
Result: Petition dismissed.
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Anirban Tripathy, Adv.
For the Respondents: Sonak Mishra, ASC, Sarita Moharana, ASC, Surya Mohapatra, Adv., S. Subham, Adv.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. summary of events and the nature of the impugned order. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7) |
| 2. parties argument regarding the maintainability of criminal revision against magistrate order. (Para 8 , 9 , 10) |
| 3. magistrate's caution against frivolous litigation is a procedural, interlocutory order. (Para 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16) |
| 4. refusal to exercise inherent powers, leading to dismissal of the case. (Para 17 , 18 , 19 , 20) |
Dr. Sanjeeb K Panigrahi, J.
1. The Petitioner, in the present petition, challenged the illegal implication of the Petitioner in the case and praying for quashing of the F.I.R. and subsequent Criminal Proceedings in relation to P.S. Case No. 329 of 2021 and proceedings of Criminal Revision Application No. 13 of 2025 pending before the Learned Sessions Court at Balasore, to quash and set aside the Order dated 11.07.
It is pertinent to note that the F.I.R. does not disclose any prima facie case regarding the implication of the Petitioners in the aforementioned case.
I. FACTUAL MATRIX OF THE CASE
2. The Petitioner is the father of the Proforma Opposite Party No. 1 and the husband of Proforma Opposite Party No. 2. The Opposite Party No. 2 is the wife of Proforma Opposite Party No 1, who got married on 04.02.2018.
3. Subsequently, the Proforma Opposite Party No 1 filed a petition for divorce at Family Court, Cuttack which was later transferred to the Family Court at Balasore and numbered CP 275 of 2021. The Proforma Opposite Party No. 1 and the Opposite Party No. 2 were then referred to Mediation/Counselling which failed on 04.10.2021. Then on 05.10.2021, the Opposite Party No. 2 filed DV Miscellaneous Petition No 150 of 2021 under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act 2005, against the Petitioner and Proforma Opposite Parties at JMFC Court Balasore.
4. Further on 11.10.2021, the Opposite Party No. 2 also lodged a Complaint with the Sadar Police Station, Balasore, against the Petitioner and the Proforma Opposite Parties and registered FIR vide P.S Case No 329 of 2021, under Sections 498 A, 294, 323, 406, 506, 34 of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. This FIR has now metamorphosed into CT Case No 869 of 2021 and the chargesheet was filed before the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class at Balasore on 09.05.2022. In furtherance of which the Petitioner and the Proforma Opposite Parties applied for Bail before the JMFC Court Balasore and were granted Bail vide Order dated 22.11.2022.
5. Consequenly, an application under Section 437(5) of the Cr.P.C for cancellation of bail was filed before the Ld. JMFC, Balasore by the Opposite Party No. 2. The Ld. JMFC, vide order dated 31.01.2025, dismissed the said application on merits and warned both the parties not to file this type of frivolous and vexatious petitions of similar nature in future without verifying proper proof.
6. Aggrieved by the said order dated 31.01.2025, the public prosecutor preferred Criminal Revision No. l3 of 2025 before the Ld. Sessions Judge, Balasore in which the Petitioner raised preliminary objection with regard to the jurisdiction of the Sessions Court to decide the criminal revision application in the light of the express bar provided in Section 397(2) and stated an application for bail or an application for the cancellation of bail are interlocutory applications and orders passed thereupon are interlocutory orders; therefore no revision against such orders would lie. The Ld. Sessions Judge vide Order dated 11.07.2025 rejected the preliminary objections raised by the Petitioner and held that the Order dated 31.01.2025 cannot be held to be an Interlocutory Order.
(Impugned Order)
7. Aggrieved by this Impugned Order dated 11.07.2025 passed in Criminal Revision Application No 13 of 2025 by the Sessions Judge, Balasore, the petitioner is challenging the legality and validity of the same before this court. Hence this Peti
