Orissa High Court
Sri Shyam Sundar Jindal vs M/S. Quartz Infra And Engineering ..... ... on 9 October, 2025
Author: Aditya Kumar Mohapatra
Bench: Aditya Kumar Mohapatra
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
CRLMC No.2698 of 2024
Sri Shyam Sundar Jindal ..... Petitioner
Represented By Adv. -
Mr. Surya Prasad Misra,
Senior Advocate along
with Mr. Asit Kumar
Dash, Advocate
-versus-
M/s. Quartz Infra and Engineering ..... Opposite Party
Pvt. Ltd., Hyderabad
Represented By Adv. -
Mr. Subir Palit, Senior
Advocate along with
Mr. Ashok Kumar
Panigrahi, Advocate
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR MOHAPATRA
ORDER
09.10.2025 Order No.
17. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual/ Physical Mode).
2. Heard Mr. S.P. Misra, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Appellant along with Mr. Asit Kumar Dash as well as Mr. Subir Palit, learned Senior Counsel along with Mr. Ashok Kumar Panigrahi for the sole Opposite Party.
3. The present application has been filed at the instance of the Petitioner by invoking the inherent power of this Court under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. with a prayer to quash the entire criminal proceeding in 1CC Case No.74 of 2017 pending in the file of the Page 1 of 4. learned S.D.J.M., Talcher.
4. The above noted 1CC case was initiated at the instance of the sole Opposite Party for alleged commission of offences punishable under Sections 191/192/193/196/463/465/468/471/120-B/ 420/427/506 of the I.P.C. read with Section 34 of the I.P.C.
5. The Opposite Party-Complainant's case, in short, is that the Complainant-Company, which is a private company, was established and started its business on 05.06.2007. The Company is engaged in the business of civil engineering and construction service for Government and private organizations. In the year 2010 to 2012, the Complainant-Company took six civil engineering contracts from M/s. Jindal India Thermal Power Ltd. for construction of peripheral roads and drains, internal roads and roads, security sheds, boundary wall, raw water reservoir extension and execution of the balance work left in the ash dyke for which the Complainant-Company has submitted three bank guarantees for a total sum of Rs.2.72 crores towards security. M/s. Jindal India Thermal Power Ltd. has terminated the contracts and encashed the bank guarantees on 29.01.2013. The Complainant- Company disputing the termination of the contracts, invoked arbitration proceeding wherein vide majority award dated 21.02.2017, a sum of Rs.9.71 crores was allowed in favour of the Complainant-Company.
6. The principal allegation of the Complainant-Company is that M/s. Jindal India Thermal Power Ltd. has placed reliance on the forged documents to mislead the Arbitral Tribunal. As such, Page 2 of 4. alleging commission of offences as has been stated hereinabove, a complaint case has filed before the learned S.D.J.M., Talcher. In the meantime, learned trial court after taking cognizance of the offences, has posted the case for framing of charge.
7. It is fairly contended by the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Accused-Petitioner that an application for discharge has already filed before the learned S.D.J.M., Talcher and the same is pending for final hearing.
8. In course of hearing the present matter on 19.09.2025, this Court requested the learned Senior Counsel for both the sides to take instruction from their respective clients as to whether they are agreeable to a proposal that pending adjudication of the present application, the learned trial court be directed to consider the discharge application.
9. Learned Senior Counsels are present in Court today and expressed their consent on behalf of their respective clients that they have no objection in the event this Court directs the learned trial court to consider the discharge application filed by the Accused-Petitioner in accordance with law.
10. Having heard the learned Senior Counsels appearing for both the sides, this Court, on a careful examination of the background facts of the present case, is of the view that it would be just, fair and proper that the learned trial court should first take up the discharge application of the Petitioner and dispose of the same in accordance with law within a stipulated period of time. Hence, the Page 3 of 4. same is hereby ordered. Further, it is directed that the learned trial court shall make every endeavour to dispose of the discharge application of the Petitioner as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of eight weeks hence by passing a reasoned order. The parties are directed to cooperate with the learned trial court and they further undertake that they will not seek any unnecessary adjournment. It is open to both sides to raise any legal ground which shall be duly considered by the learned Trial Court.
11. List this matter in the week commencing 15th December, 2025.
( A.K. Mohapatra ) Judge Debasis Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: DEBASIS AECH Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT Date: 10-Oct-2025 18:31:28 Page 4 of 4.