Orissa HC Entertains Quashing Petition Against SDJM Puri's Cognizance Order, Shields Petitioner from Trial Proceedings for Eight Weeks
Justice Aditya Kumar Mohapatra admits a CRLMC under Section 528 BNSS challenging cognizance and summons issued by SDJM Puri in G.R. Case No. 502 of 2021, granting interim protection to the accused-petitioner.
The High Court of Orissa at Cuttack, on 27 July 2026, admitted a criminal miscellaneous petition filed by accused-petitioner Shalini Passi seeking to quash the cognizance order and summons issued by the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Puri. Justice Aditya Kumar Mohapatra, sitting singly, heard the matter through a hybrid arrangement and issued notice to the State of Odisha while simultaneously directing the trial court to adjourn proceedings for eight weeks if the petitioner applies for such adjournment. The petition turns on the Senior Counsel's argument that the FIR's allegations do not sustain the offences registered against the petitioner.
The Dispute Before the High Court
The SDJM, Puri took cognizance on 8 June 2021 in G.R. Case No. 502 of 2021, corresponding to Singhadwara Police Station Case No. 12 of 2021. The petitioner, Shalini Passi, is the accused in those proceedings. Aggrieved by the cognizance order and the summons that followed, she filed CRLMC No. 2348 of 2026 before the Orissa High Court under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, invoking the court's inherent power to quash.
Section 528 BNSS is the successor provision to Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, preserving the High Court's inherent jurisdiction to prevent abuse of process or to secure the ends of justice.
Petitioner's Contention on Inapplicable Sections
Senior Counsel for the petitioner advanced two distinct arguments. First, he contended that even if the allegations in the FIR are accepted at face value, no cognisable offence is made out under the sections invoked. Second, he submitted that certain sections added by the police simply do not apply to the acts alleged in the FIR. The thrust of the submission was that the cognizance order is legally unsustainable on the face of the record.
Counsel for the State of Odisha, represented by Mr. C.M. Singh as Additional Standing Counsel, sought time to obtain instructions on the contentions raised.
Interim Direction to the Trial Court
Alongside admitting the petition and issuing notice, the court also took up I.A. No. 1864 of 2026. In that interlocutory application the petitioner sought interim protection from further proceedings before the SDJM. The court accepted one set of process fee and issued notice.
As an interim measure, Justice Mohapatra directed that if the petitioner files an application before the trial court seeking an adjournment for further proceedings, the learned trial court “shall do well to adjourn the matter for a period of eight weeks.” The direction is framed as a protective buffer: it does not stay the trial court's jurisdiction outright, but it ensures that the proceedings do not advance against the petitioner while the quashing petition is pending.
Order
The court granted the State four weeks' time to obtain instructions and directed the matter to be listed in the week commencing 7 September 2026. The interim direction protecting the petitioner from compelled appearance or further advancement of trial proceedings remains operative in the meantime, subject to the petitioner filing the necessary adjournment application before the SDJM, Puri.