Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Ori) 3305
Sanjeeb K Panigrahi, J
Batakrushna Dehury – Appellant
Versus
State of Odisha – Respondent
CRLMC No.163 of 2025
Important Points
Subject
Criminal Law - Criminal Procedure
Act Referred
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023: S.528
Indian Penal Code: S.420, S.406, S.506, S.294, S.34, S.419, S.467, S.468, S.471
Headnote
(B) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - S.362 - Embargo on Review - Once a final order of interim release is passed under S.457 CrPC, Magistrate has no jurisdiction to review the same on merits or cancel it without allegation of breach of conditions, unless the order was obtained by fraud - Re-appreciating evidence during pendency of trial in the guise of cancellation of bail/zimanama is impermissible.
Facts of the case:
The Petitioner purchased a JCB machine from Opposite Party No. 2. A dispute regarding ownership and alleged forgery of a sale deed led to multiple FIRs. The Magistrate initially released the machine to the Petitioner under Section 457 CrPC. Later, based on police reports alleging the sale deed was forged, the Magistrate cancelled the release order without issuing notice to the Petitioner, who sought to quash this order before the High Court.
Findings of Court:
The Magistrate’s order was passed without notice, violating natural justice, and functioned as an unauthorized review of a prior final order, violating Section 362 CrPC. The Court underscored that internal contradictions in the Magistrate’s orders (refusing seizure while simultaneously cancelling release) rendered the impugned order arbitrary.
Issues: Whether the Magistrate erred by cancelling the interim custody of the vehicle without notice and whether such an order violated the prohibition on review under Section 362 CrPC.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court held that an interim release order cannot be recalled or reviewed without providing a hearing to the affected party, and a court cannot revisit the merits of an ownership dispute at the interim stage unless specific conditions of the release order are breached.
Result: Application allowed; Impugned order quashed.
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Anish Ankur Mishra, Prasanna Kumar Mishra
For the Respondents: Tej Kumar (ASC), Debi Prasad Dhal (Sr. Adv.)
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. overview of the petition filed under section 482 crpc/528 bnss challenging the cancellation of a vehicle's interim release. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. summary of rival contentions regarding fraud in documentation and procedural fairness. (Para 3 , 4) |
| 3. court's reasoning on the violation of natural justice, section 362 crpc prohibition, and non-application of mind. (Para 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9) |
| 4. final outcome: impugned order quashed and original release order restored. (Para 10 , 11 , 12) |
Dr. Sanjeeb K Panigrahi, J.
1. The Petitioner has instituted the present Criminal Miscellaneous Case under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973/ Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, invoking inherent jurisdiction of this Court, inter alia, seeking to quash/set aside the order dated 02.01.2025 passed by the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Kamakhyanagar in G.R. Case No.696 of 2022 being illegal, arbitrary and unsustainable in law.
I. FACTUAL MATRIX OF THE CASE:
2. The brief facts of the case are as follows:
(i) Opposite Party No. 2 was the original owner of a JS81 Excavator Machine of JCB make bearing Serial No./Machine No. 1799898, manufactured in 2014, which he had purchased with financial assistance from Magma Fincorp Ltd.
(ii) Due to financial difficulties, Opposite Party No.2 approached the Petitioner and offered to sell the aforesaid JCB machine for a consideration of Rs.13 lakhs. The Petitioner accepted the proposal and paid the entire consideration amount to Opposite Party No.2. Thereafter, Opposite Party No.2 delivered possession of the JCB to the Petitioner on 13.11.2018 after clearing the dues of Magma Finance Company. Since the Petitioner had no experience in operating or managing the JCB machine, it was mutually agreed that Opposite Party No.2 would manage the machine and pay a monthly rent of Rs. 50,000/- to the Petitioner.
(iii) The Petitioner also availed financial assistance from SREI Finance Company for the said JCB. After taking possession, Opposite Party No.2 got an agreement executed in the name of his daughter-in-law, named, Ranjita Jena, stipulating that she would manage the vehicle and pay a monthly rent of Rs. 50,000/- to the Petitioner.
(iv) Pursuant to the agreement dated 21.01.2019, the said JCB was managed by Opposite Party No.2 through Ranjita Jena (his daughter-in-law). However, Opposite Party No.2 neither paid the agreed monthly rent to the Petitioner nor allowed the Petitioner to take possession of the JCB machine. Consequently, the Petitioner lodged an FIR at Tumusinga Police Station against Opposite Party No. 2, his son Jitu Jena and his daughter-in-law Ranjita Jena, which was registered as Tumusinga P.S. Case No. 222 of 2022 under Sections 420/406/506/294/34 of the Indian Penal Code, corresponding to G.R. Case No. 696 of 2022.
(v) During the course of investigation, the Investigating Agency seized the JCB and reported the matter to the learned S.D.J.M., Kamakhyanagar. The Investigating Agency also seized documents relating to the financing of the vehicle and examined witnesses, including staff of SREI Finance Company.
(vi) In the aforesaid G.R. case, Opposite Party No.2 filed an application under Section 457 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking release of the JCB in his favour. The said application was contested by the Petitioner and the learned Magistrate, upon hearing all parties and perusing the materials on record, rejected the prayer of Opposite Party No.2 by order dated 19.12.2022 in CMC No. 63 of 2022.
(vii) Challenging the order dated 19.12.2022, Opposite Party No.2 filed Criminal Revision No.01 of 2023 before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kamakhyanagar. Upon hearing the parties, the learned Revisional Court confirmed the order of the learned Magistrate and dismissed the revision petition.
(viii) Thereafter, upon an application filed by the Petitioner, the learned Magistrate, being satisfied, was pleased to release the JCB in favo
