Orissa High Court
Pravakar Samanta vs State Of Orissa And Another .... ... on 29 January, 2026
Author: Chittaranjan Dash
Bench: Chittaranjan Dash
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
CRLMC No. 664 of 2021
Pravakar Samanta .... Petitioner
Mr. S.K. Chadha,
Chadha Advocate
-versus-
State of Orissa and another .... Opposite Parties
Mr. S.J. Mohanty,, Addl. P. P.
For O.P. No.1
Mr. A. Patnaik, Advocate
For O.P. No.2
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE
BLE MR. JUSTICE CHITTARANJAN DASH
Date of Judgment: 29.01.2026
Chittaranjan Dash, J.
1. By means of this application, the Petitioner seeks seek to quash the order the order dated 04.01.2021 passed by the learned S.D.J.M., Bhubaneswar in C.T. No.4259 of 2019 and judgment dated 19.03.2021 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge-cum-
Judge Special Judge, CBI-II, CBI Bhubaneswar in Criminal Revision evision No.22 of 2021.
2. In the aforesaid order and judgment, the learned court below declined to release the sum of Rs.30,00,000/-
Rs.30,00,000/ deposited in the form of Standby Letter of Credit dit (SBLC) with the banker of the accused Opposite Party i.e. State Bank of India, Commercial Bank, IDCOL House, Ashok Nagar, Bhubaneswar as against the security for CRLMC No.664 of 2021 Page 1 of 14 awarding proposed dealership of retail outlet for Indizel and products purported to have been been seized in connection with the investigation of the case in CID Crime Branch P.S. Case No.78 of 2019.
3. The factual backdrop of the case, in brief, is that the Petitioner, having come across an advertisement published in the Odia daily newspaper "The Sambad"
Sambad" dated 06.10.2017, contacted the authorised signatory of M/s. My Own Eco Energy Private Limited,, Pune, which claimed to be a manufacturer and distributor of Indizel (bio-diesel), diesel), a renewable diesel product. Pursuant thereto, one Soumya Ranjan Mishra, representing representing the accused company, entered into an agreement dated 01.12.2017 with the Petitioner/Informant through one Tapas Kumar Sahoo for grant of a retail outlet for Indizel and allied products at Ankul, Jajpur, in terms of the business plan. In furtherance furtherance of the said agreement, the Petitioner paid a sum of Rs.30,00,000/-
Rs.30,00,000/ (Rupees Thirty Lakhs only) in the form of a Letter of Credit through the State Bank of India, Commercial Branch, IDCOL House, Ashok Nagar, Bhubaneswar, and also deposited a refundable security security amount of Rs.15,00,000/-
Rs.15,00,000/ (Rupees Fifteen Lakhs only) in five instalments in the bank account of the accused company. It is stated that after the aforesaid payments were made, one Priyabarta Nanda, Junior Head of the accused company, developed the site site and undertook certain civil construction works. However, despite repeated requests and follow-
follow up by the Petitioner with Soumya Ranjan Mishra and Tapas Kumar Sahoo, the authorised representatives of the accused company declined to supply the equipment in in terms of the agreement, subsequently closed their office at Bhubaneswar, and failed to CRLMC No.664 of 2021 Page 2 of 14 respond to the Petitioner's requests for refund of the amounts received towards the proposed dealership. According to the Petitioner, Clause-7 Clause of the agreement contemplated lated furnishing of a bank guarantee to secure the dues of the company towards supply of equipment and products. However, it later transpired that the accused company had allegedly adopted fraudulent practices and cheated not only the Petitioner but several several other entrepreneurs across different parts of the State of Odisha, collecting substantial sums of money. The Petitioner further claims to have ascertained that the Managing Director of the accused company and his associates were arrested by the Hyderabad Central Crime Station Police in connection with FIR No. 78 of 2019 dated 10.04.2019 for offences of cheating. It is further alleged that the accused company had indulged in similar fraudulent activities and was attempting to encash or transfer the Standby Letter of Credit (SBLC) of Rs.30,00,000/- to unknown concerns. Apprehending such action, the Petitioner approached this Court by filing W.P.(C) No. 16019 of 2019 seeking a direction to the State Bank of India, Commercial Branch, IDCOL House, Bhubaneswar, not to disburse, encash or permit transfer of the SBLC in favour of the accused company or any third party, and also sought initiation of investigation into the alleged fraudulent activities of the company. Considering the gravity of the allegations, this Court, by order dated 12.09.2019, disposed of the writ petition with the following directions:-
directions:
"Regard being heard to the facts and submissions, the petitioner is directed to lodge an F.I.R in the competent police station or crime branch whichever is authorized to take charge of the investigation, CRLMC No.664 of 2021 Page 3 of 14 within two weeks from today. If such an F.I.R is lodged, ged, immediate follow up action shall be taken by the competent police station and withdrawal of the stand by letter of credit guarantee by the Opp. Party (Company) shall be checked in accordance with law.Till one month from today, the Opp. Party No. 4
(SBI Commercial Branch) is directed not to encashment or transfer to any other party the standby letter of guarantee given by the petitioner in favour of the Opp.Party No. 3 (Company). With the aforesaid observation, the Writ Application is disposed of."
of.
4. Pursuant to the directions issued by this Court in W.P.(C) No. 16019 of 2019 by order dated 21.09.2019, the CID registered CID P.S. Case No. 11 of 2019 at the instance of the Petitioner against Tapas Kumar Sahoo, Soumya Ranjan Mishra, Priyabrata Nanda andd other officials/authorised persons of M/s. My Own Eco Energy Pvt. Ltd. In connection with the said case, the investigating agency seized the sum of Rs.30,00,000/-
Rs.30,00,000/ deposited in the form of a Letter of Credit with the State Bank of India, Commercial Branch, Branch IDCO House, Bhubaneswar, and the Petitioner was duly intimated by the Bank regarding such seizure. The Petitioner asserts that he was in urgent need of funds for the admission of his son to school, having invested his entire savings in the aforesaid business business venture, and having subsequently discovered that the accused firm had practised fraud by failing to supply bio-diesel bio diesel as advertised and agreed upon. Accordingly, he approached the learned S.D.J.M., Bhubaneswar seeking release of the Letter of Credit under u Section 457 Cr.P.C. However, upon hearing the parties, the learned CRLMC No.664 of 2021 Page 4 of 14 Magistrate declined to release the said amount, holding the application to be not maintainable.
Aggrieved thereby, the Petitioner preferred Criminal Revision No. 50 of 2021 before the learned Sessions Judge, Bhubaneswar, which, upon transfer, was renumbered as Criminal Revision No. 22 of 2021 and heard by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge-cum-Special Special Judge, CBI-II, CBI II, Bhubaneswar. The revisional court, by judgment dated 19.03.2021, dismissed dismissed the revision petition. Being dissatisfied with the aforesaid orders passed by the courts below, the Petitioner has invoked the inherent jurisdiction of this Court by filing the present application seeking release of the said amount.
5. Mr. Chadha, learned counsel counsel for the Petitioner, during the course of hearing, inter alia, drew the attention of this Court to the manner in which M/s. My Own Eco Energy Private Limited floated advertisements inviting applications for grant of retailership, pursuant to which the the Petitioner deposited a sum of Rs.30,00,000/-
Rs.30,00,000/ in the form of a Letter of Credit, in addition to a refundable security deposit of Rs.15,00,000/-
Rs.15,00,000/ remitted through NEFT/RTGS in five instalments to the bank account of the accused company.
Learned counsel further further submitted that despite execution of the agreement dated 01.12.2017 between the parties, the accused company failed to supply the products in terms thereof. It was contended that the accused company had practised fraud not only upon the Petitioner but also also upon several other similarly placed persons, and that it had no intention either to award retailership or to supply Indizel bio-products.
bio products. According to learned counsel, the CRLMC No.664 of 2021 Page 5 of 14 amount deposited by the Petitioner under the Standby Letter of Credit remains unutilised unutilised and its continued retention is seriously prejudicial to the interests of the Petitioner, particularly when there is no possibility of the business being carried forward in view of the alleged fraudulent conduct of the accused company, against whom multiple FIRs have also been registered.
It was further submitted that the directions issued by this Court in W.P.(C) No. 16019 of 2019 were challenged by the accused company before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Special Leave to Appeal (C) No.7380-7381 No.7380 of 2022, wherein the grounds opposing the Petitioner's claim for release of the aforesaid amount were urged; however, the Hon'ble Supreme Court declined to accept such contentions.
contentions
6. Per contra, Mr. Patnaik, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Opposite Party No.2-M/s.
M/s. My Own Eco Energy Private Limited,, vehemently opposed the submissions advanced by Mr. Chadha, learned counsel for the Petitioner. He contended, inter alia, that the present application is not maintainable in its present form, inasmuch as thee dispute arises out of the terms of the agreement, which provides for resolution through arbitration, and that the Petitioner is at liberty to invoke such remedy or seek appropriate relief before the competent forum. Learned counsel further submitted that the allegations of fraud levelled by the Petitioner are wholly unfounded and premature. It was argued that the Petitioner is not entitled to seek release of the amount in question on allegations of fraud during the pendency of the investigation. According to learned counsel, the impugned order passed by the CRLMC No.664 of 2021 Page 6 of 14 learned trial court is in consonance with law and does not warrant any interference by this Court.
7. Admittedly, the Petitioner had approached both the learned Magistrate and the Revisional Court seeking release of the seized amount lying with the State Bank of India, Commercial Branch, pursuant to the deposit made in terms of the agreement entered into between the Petitioner and the accused firm. From a perusal of the record, and as is undisputed from the submissions advanced by the respective parties, it is evident that the accused firm had floated an advertisement in the Odia daily newspaper "The Sambad" inviting applications for grant of retail outlets for its product, namely bio-
bio diesel. Induced by the said advertisement, the Petitioner applied for a retail outlet in the name and style of M/s. Shree Durga Filling Station under Jajpur Tahasil, deposited an application fee of Rs.2,00,000/-,, and further paid a sum of Rs.1,00,000/-
Rs.1,00,000/ towards consideration of his his application. An agreement between the parties was thereafter executed on 01.12.2017. In terms of the said agreement, the Petitioner deposited an interest-free interest free refundable security amount of Rs.15,00,000/-
Rs.15,00,000/ in five instalments and furnished a sum of Rs.30,00,000/ 00,000/- in the form of a Standby Letter of Credit (SBLC) in accordance with Clause-7 Clause 7 of the agreement. However, the accused firm neither awarded the retailership nor refunded the amounts deposited by the Petitioner despite repeated requests. It further transpired anspired that the office of the accused firm located at Signature Tower, Pahala, was subsequently closed, and no effective communication from the accused firm was forthcoming, rendering it impossible for the Petitioner to pursue the proposed retailership.
CRLMC No.664 of 2021 Page 7 of 14Being under the apprehension that the accused firm was attempting to encash or transfer the SBLC amount of Rs.30,00,000/- to unknown entities, the Petitioner approached this Court by filing a writ petition. By virtue of the interim directions issued therein, n, such attempt was stalled, as a result of which the amount of Rs.30,00,000/-
Rs.30,00,000/ deposited by the Petitioner in the form of an SBLC with the State Bank of India, Commercial Branch, IDCO House, Ashok Nagar, Bhubaneswar remained frozen. Pursuant to the directions ons of this Court to lodge an FIR, the Petitioner submitted a complaint, which was registered as CID Crime Branch P.S. Case No. 11 of 2019.
8. The aforesaid action of the Petitioner was challenged by the accused firm before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Special Specia Leave to Appeal (C) Nos. 7380-7381 7380 7381 of 2022; however, the Hon'ble Supreme Court declined to entertain the said petitions, taking note of the fact that several FIRs had been registered against the accused firm, and granted liberty to the Petitioner to proceed proceed in accordance with law in the pending criminal case, as follows:
"Since Since in pursuance of the order of High Court dated 12.09.2019, an F.I.R. has been registered and the investigation is in progress, coupled with the fact that similar F.I.Rs. have been registered registered in other states as well on similar allegations, we do not deem it necessary to exercise our discretionary jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution of India"
9. Consequently, during the course of investigation in CID Crime Branch P.S. Case No. 11 of 2019, the sum of Rs.30,00,000/-
Rs.30,00,000/ lying with the State Bank of India, Commercial Branch, IDCO CRLMC No.664 of 2021 Page 8 of 14 House, Ashok Nagar, Bhubaneswar was seized by the I.O., as duly intimated to the Petitioner by his banker.
It is the case of the Petitioner that the amount amou of Rs.30,00,000/- was furnished solely as security to ensure supply under the proposed retailership. However, since no such supply was ever made, and in view of the fact that, as per the terms of the agreement, the commencement thereof was contingent upon up commissioning of the dealership, the SBLC furnished by the Petitioner has no operative consequence in the context of the contractual relationship between the parties.
In this regard, Clause-5(i) Clause 5(i) of the agreement assumes relevance and reads as follows:-
follows:
"Effective Effective Date and Term: This Agreement shall become effective from the date of commissioning of the dealership (First Supply) and shall remain in force for an initial period of seven years and shall be renewed for the same period thereafter in accordance with the terms of this Agreement."
10. In the matter of Usha Chakraborty & another vs. State of West Bengal and another reported in (2023) 15 SCC 135, 135 the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as follows:-
follows:
"8. In Paramjeet Batra v. State of Uttarakhand, this Court held: (SCC p. 676, para 12) "12.
12. While exercising its jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code the High Court has to be cautious. This power is to be used sparingly and only for the purpose of preventing abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure ends of justice. Whether a complaint discloses a criminal offence or not depends upon the nature of the facts alleged therein. Whether essential ingredients of criminal offence are CRLMC No.664 of 2021 Page 9 of 14 present or not has to be judged by the High Court. A complaint disclosing disclosing civil transactions may also have a criminal texture. But the High Court must see whether a dispute which is essentially of a civil nature is given a cloak of criminal offence. In such a situation, if a civil remedy is available and is, in fact, adopted ed as has happened in this case, the High Court should not hesitate to quash the criminal proceedings to prevent abuse of process of the court."
court.
×××
10.. In Kapil Aggarwal v. Sanjay Sharma, this Court held that Section 482 is designed to achieve the purpose of ensuring that criminal proceedings are not permitted to generate into weapons of harassment.
11. In the decision in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, a two-Judge Judge Bench of this Court considered the statutory provisions as also the earlier decisions and held he as under: (SCC pp. 378-79, 378 para 102) "102....
102.... (1) Where the allegations made in the first information report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out ou a case against the accused.
(2) Where the allegations in the first information report and other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Section 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code.
(3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and and make out a case against the accused.
(4) Where the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a CRLMC No.664 of 2021 Page 10 of 14 Magistrate as contemplated contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code.
(5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against ag the accused.
(6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the Act concerned (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific s provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party.
(7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge. ×××
20. As noticed hereinbefore, the respondent alleged commission of offences under Sections 323, 384, 406, 423, 467, 468, 420 and 120-B 120 IPC against the appellants. A bare perusal of the said allegation and the ingredients to attract them, as adverted to hereinbefore would reveal that the allegations are vague and they did not carry the essential ingredients to constitute the alleged offences.
offences. There is absolutely no allegation in the complaint that the appellants herein had caused hurt on the respondent so also, they did not reveal a case that the appellants had intentionally put the respondent in fear of injury either to himself or another or by putting him under such fear or injury, dishonestly induced him to deliver any property or valuable security. The same is the position with respect to the alleged offences punishable under Sections 406. 423. 467, 468, 420 and 120-B 120 B IPC. The ingredients ingredien to attract the alleged offence referred to hereinbefore and the nature of the allegations contained in the CRLMC No.664 of 2021 Page 11 of 14 application filed by the respondent would undoubtedly make it clear that the respondent had failed to make specific allegation against the appellants appellants herein in respect of the aforesaid offences.
21. The factual position thus would reveal that the genesis as also the purpose of criminal proceedings are nothing but the aforesaid incident and further that the dispute involved is essentially of civil nature.
nature. The appellants b and the respondents have given a cloak of criminal offence in the issue. In such circumstance when the respondent had already resorted to the available civil remedy and it is pending, going by the decision in Paramjeet Batra, the High High Court would have quashed the criminal proceedings to prevent the abuse of the process of the Court but for the concealment.
22. In the aforesaid circumstances, coupled with the fact that in respect of the issue involved, which is of civil nature, the respondent respondent had already approached the jurisdictional civil court by instituting a civil suit and it is pending, there can be no doubt with respect to the fact that the attempt on the part of the respondent is to use the criminal proceedings as weapon of harassment haras against the appellants. The indisputable facts that the respondent has filed the pending title suit in the year 2015, he got no case that he obtained an interim relief against his removal from the office of Secretary of the School Managing Committee as also the trusteeship, that he filed the stated application for an order for investigation only in April 2017 together with absence of a case that despite such removal he got a right to get informed of the affairs of the school and also the trust, would only support the said conclusion.
23. For all these reasons, we are of the considered view that this case invites invocation of the power under Section 482 CrPC to quash the FIR registered based on the direction of the Magistrate Court in the aforestated application and all further proceeding proceeding in pursuance thereof. Also, we have no hesitation to hold that permitting continuance of the criminal proceedings CRLMC No.664 of 2021 Page 12 of 14 against the appellants in the aforesaid circumstances would result in abuse of the process of court and also in miscarriage of justice."
justice
11. Though hough this Court is not called upon to examine the sustainability of the criminal proceedings, it cannot be lost sight of that the underlying transaction is contractual in nature. As observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the above decision, criminal process cess ought not to be permitted to operate as a coercive mechanism in essentially civil disputes. Continued retention of the petitioner's deposit, despite non-commencement non commencement of the contract, would amount to such misuse.
12. It is an admitted position between the parties that there was no commencement or commissioning of the dealership pursuant to the advertisement floated by the accused firm, notwithstanding the amount deposited by the Petitioner with the Bank. The said amount was admittedly deposited with the sole sole intention of securing the proposed retailership, which, in fact, was never awarded to the Petitioner by the accused firm. Consequently, the amount lying with the Bank has remained unutilised and continues to do so, serving no purpose except remaining under under seizure for the sake of investigation.
13. In such circumstances, the mere retention of the said amount with the Bank, in the absence of any material prima facie indicating that the accused firm has any lien or subsisting right over the same, would result in in its continued stagnation to the clear detriment of the Petitioner's interest. In the considered opinion of this Court, and in the best interest of the matter in dispute, it is CRLMC No.664 of 2021 Page 13 of 14 therefore necessary that the said amount be released in favour of the Petitioner er on an interim basis. The Petitioner shall take custody of the amount and may utilise the same for his purposes, subject to the condition that, in the event the amount becomes the subject matter of any adjudication between the parties, the same shall be restored as and when directed by any competent court.
14. The amount of Rs.30,00,000/-
Rs.30,00,000/ deposited by the Petitioner in the form of a Standby Letter of Credit with the State Bank of India, Commercial Branch, IDCO House, Bhubaneswar shall be released in favour of the Petitioner on an interim basis, subject to the conditions indicated hereinabove. The Petitioner shall furnish an undertaking before the learned court below to abide by any further directions that may be issued by the court concerned with regard to the said amount.
15. It is made clear that the observations herein,, are confined solely to the disposal of the present application and shall not be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the criminal case pending investigation, which shall proceed independently in accordance with law.
(Chittaranjan Dash) Judge Bijay Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BIJAY KETAN SAHOO Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA Date: 30-Jan-2026 14:57:12 CRLMC No.664 of 2021 Page 14 of 14