High Court of Orissa
Case Details
AFR IN THE HIG E HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTT CUTTACK CRLMC No. 348 of 2023 Satya Priya Jaya Jayasingh …. Petitioner Mr. L. Mishra ishra, Advocate -versus- State of Odisha Anr. isha (EOW) & …. Oppos pposite Parties hanty, Addl. P.P Ms. S. Mohanty For O.P. No.1 For Panda, Advocate Mr. D. Panda For O.P. No.2 For CORAM: THE HON’BLE BLE MR. JUSTICE CHITTARANJAN JAN DASH Date of Judgment: 17.10.2025 Chittaranjan Dash, ash, J. 1. 2. Heard learn rd learned counsels for both the parties. By means eans of this application the Petitioner seek er seeks to quash the FIR under A der Annexure-1 in connection with EOW EOW P.S. Case No.02 of 2023 pen 23 pending before the learned S.D.J.M., Bh M., Bhubaneswar in C.T. Case No.42 No.42 of 2023. 3. The backg
Facts
background facts of the case are that one A one Ajay Kumar Agarwal lodged a ged a report alleging that the Petitioner na ner namely Satya Priya Jayasingh, t ngh, the Managing Partner of M/s. Maa C aa Chandeswari Granites agreed to eed to transfer the lease of a granite stone m tone mine quarry at village Dimirit imiritadi, in Tahasil Dasapalla over the p the plot bearing No.12 pertaining ining to Khata No.22 for an area of 13 of 13.60 Acres. Although it is sta is stated that the Petitioner executed an d an irrevocable CRLMC No. 348 of 2 of 2023 Page 1 of 8 general power of er of attorney dated 20.11.2017 in favo n favour of the Opposite Party No rty No.2-Informant for raising, operating ting and running the mines, it is alle t is alleged that he being induced by the pro he promise of the Petitioner by trans y transfer the lease, the Opposite Party No.2 y No.2-Informant paid consideration eration of Rs.1,45,00,000/- apart from Rs. m Rs.20,00,000/- paid subsequently uently against the residuary amount of Rs. of Rs.30,00,000/- paid towards procu s procurement of goods. According to the Pe the Petitioner, the aforesaid allegatio egations are vexatious, concocted and ex fac
Legal Reasoning
ex facie false and has been made so de so with the sole intention to coerce the P e the Petitioner to transfer the mining mining lease in his favour pursuant to the Od the Odisha Minor Minerals Amendm mendment Act, 2022 vide Gazette Notifica otification dated 31.03.2022 which which allows transfer of leases. Accord ccording to the Petitioner, the con he consideration amount alleged to have bee ve been paid was received from one m one M/s. Walter Vanijya (P) Ltd. for sal for sale of stones from the said quar d quarry. The Opposite Party No.2/ Informan formant by virtue of the irrevocable ocable of power of attorney continue to o e to operate the quarry without an t any hindrance. Thus, on a bare peru e perusal of the allegations made i made in the report, there appears no prima prima facie case made out against gainst the Petitioner for commission of th of the offences under Section 420/ n 420/406/467/468/471/506/34 of IPC. It is f It is further case of the Petitioner th oner that the criminal case thus motivated by ted by vengeance to settle his score score against the Petitioner, who refuses efuses to transfer and/or initiate the ate the process to transfer the lease in e in his favour. Furthermore, it is , it is the case of the Petitioner that so at so far as the monetary aspect spect is concerned, the nature of dispute ispute is purely contractual and the and the Opposite Party No.2-Informant has a t has all means to initiate a money c ney claim for recovery, hence, the FIR is l IR is liable to be quashed. CRLMC No. 348 of 2 of 2023 Page 2 of 8 4. Perusal o sal of the case record reveals that that the EOW, Bhubaneswar regi r registered the FIR No.02 of 2023 for th for the offences under Section 420 n 420/406/467/468/471/506/34 of IPC imp C implicating the Petitioner. The FIR he FIR allegations reveals that the Petition etitioner failed to keep the promise mise in taking steps towards transfer the gr the granite stone quarry lease in fav in favour of the Opposite Party-Informant, mant, who claims to have paid a sum a sum of Rs.1.45 Crore as advance in the in the year 2018. Although such tran ch transfer of lease was not permissible unde le under law prior to the amendment 022. ment in the OMMC Rules in the year 2022. 5. Mr. Mishra Mishra, learned counsel for the Petitioner, s ner, submits that the Petitioner runs r runs a partnership firm in the name and s and style of M/s Maa Chandeswari eswari Granites, which is primarily engaged gaged in mineral development, extr t, extraction and operation of granite and e and decorative stones from quar quarry sources leased in its favour by ur by the State Government under t under the provisions of the OMMC Rules, Rules, 2016. The firm presently o tly operates two such stone quarries t ries through its authorised represe epresentatives and/or raising contractors. Th ors. The minerals produced are proce e processed and subsequently sold to traders raders and dealers within and outside utside the State as per their respective purc e purchase orders and indents. Pur Pursuant to being a successful leaseh leaseholder, the Department of Ste of Steel and Mines, vide letter dated 20.09.2 0.09.2017, issued a grant order in th r in the Petitioner’s favour, setting out the ut the terms and conditions for exe or execution of a mining lease in respect spect of an area measuring 13.60 a 3.60 acres for decorative stones in village illage Dimiritadi under Dasapalla T alla Tahasil in the district of Nayagarh. On 2 . On 20.11.2017, the Petitioner’s fi er’s firm executed an irrevocable General eneral Power of Attorney in favour favour of the Informant for the purpose of se of raising and operating the said e said decorative stone quarry. The said Gen id General Power CRLMC No. 348 of 2 of 2023 Page 3 of 8 of Attorney was was communicated to the Mining Offic Officer, as per procedural require equirements, vide letter dated 14.12.2017. According rding to the learned counsel for the Petitio Petitioner, in the ordinary course of urse of its business, the firm received purch purchase orders from M/s Walter V alter Vanijya (P) Ltd. for the sale of decora orative stones. The Opposite Part te Party No.2/Informant, acting on behalf o ehalf of the firm, accepted the said said orders, against which an advance amo ce amount of Rs. 1,45,00,000/- was was received during the relevant year by ar by the firm at the request of the of the Informant. The irrevocable Power o wer of Attorney was executed in f d in favour of the Opposite Party No.2/Inf o.2/Informant not only for the operat operation of the stone quarry but also for ma for managing the quarry and underta ndertaking sale transactions with vendors, t dors, traders, etc. However, the Opp e Opposite Party No.2/Informant failed on led on numerous occasions to perf o perform the contractual obligations, r ns, resulting in substantial loss to oss to the Petitioner’s firm. The advance rec ce received from M/s Walter Vanijy Vanijya (P) Ltd. was received by the firm firm and not by the Opposite Party Party No.2/Informant, and therefore the Inf the Informant has no claim whatsoev atsoever vis-à-vis the Petitioner’s firm nor a nor any liability towards M/s Walte Walter Vanijya (P) Ltd. Consequently, it is ly, it is submitted that the allegation gations made in the FIR dated 09.01.2023, 2023, implicating the itioner Petitioner in offences der under Sections 420/406/467/468/4 /468/471/506/34 of the IPC, cannot stand stand the test of law. In the absenc absence of any material to substantiate the ate the allegation that the Petitioner tioner was required to transfer the lease in fa e in favour of the Opposite Party No rty No.2/Informant, the accusations lack the ck the prima facie ingredients necess necessary to implicate the Petitioner in t r in the alleged offences. CRLMC No. 348 of 2 of 2023 Page 4 of 8 6. The Hon’b Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Sta State of M.P. vs. Awadh Kishor ishore Gupta, reported in (2004) 1 SCC CC 691, while referring to the dec the decision in the matter of State of Haryan ryana and Ors. vs. Ch. Bhajanlal nlal and Ors. reported in 1992 Supp(1) SC ) SCC 335, has held as follows:- As noted above, the powers possessed by the “As no t under Section 482 of the Code are very wid Court unde plenitude of the power requires great cau the very ple ercise. Court must be careful to see that its de its exercise ercise of this power is based on sound prin in exercise inherent power should not be exercised to s The inhere mate prosecution. High Court being the h legitimate t of a State should normally refrain from gi Court of a a facie decision in a case where the entire fa prima facie plete and hazy, more so when the evidence h incomplete collected and produced before the Court a been collec s legal, a involved, whether factual or inv issues itude and cannot be seen in their true persp magnitude ut sufficient material. Of course, no hard an without suf can be laid down in regard to cases in whi rule can be Court will exercise its extraordinary jurisdic High Court hing the proceeding at any stage. (See: The quashing th etc. v. H.S. Chowdhary and others, etc. (AIR Dal etc. v. 892), Dr. Raghubir Saran v. State of Biha SC 892), er (AIR 1964 SC 1)). It would not be proper another (AI Court to analyse the case of the complainant High Court of all probabilities in order to determine whe light of all iction would be sustainable and, on such pre conviction e at a conclusion that the proceedings are arrive at a hed. It would be erroneous to assess the m quashed. It e it and conclude that the complaint cann before it a eded with. In proceeding instituted on com proceeded ise of the inherent powers to quash the proce exercise of lled for only in a case where the complaint do is called fo ose any offence or is frivolous, vexatio disclose a essive. If the allegations set out in the compla oppressive. onstitute the offence of which cognizance ha not constitu by the Magistrate, it is open to the High Co taken by th h the same in exercise of the inherent powers quash the s on 482 of the Code. It is not, however, nec Section 482 by the High ery wide and at caution in t its decision d principles. d to stifle a the highest om giving a tire facts are ence has not ourt and the gal, are of perspective ard and fast in which the risdiction of : The Janata . (AIR 1993 f Bihar and roper for the lainant in the ne whether a ch premises, s are to be the material t cannot be n complaint, proceedings aint does not exatious or complaint do nce has been igh Court to owers under er, necessary CRLMC No. 348 of 2 of 2023 Page 5 of 8 there should be meticulous analysis of th e the trial to find out whether the case would iction or acquittal. The complaint has to be rea e. If it appears that on consideration o tions in the light of the statement made on o omplainant that the ingredients of the offe ces are disclosed and there is no material to he complaint is mala fide, frivolous or vexati vent there would be no justification for interf e High Court. When an information is lodged e station and an offence is registered, then th of the informant would be of secondary impo the material collected during the investigatio nce led in Court which decides the fate sed person. The allegations of mala fides agai mant are of no consequence and cannot by it basis for quashing the proceeding. (See : alakshmi v. R. Prasanna Kumar and others SC 494), State of Bihar and another v. ma, I.A.S. and another (1992 Suppl (1) SCC n Deol Bajaj (Mrs.) and another v. Kanw h Gill and another (1995 (6) SCC 194), St la and others v. O.C. Kuttan and others (19 651), State of U.P. v. O. P. Sharma (1996 (7 , Rashmi Kumar (Smt.) v. Mahesh Kumar 7 (2) SCC 397), Satvinder Kaur v. State (Go T of Delhi) and another (1999 (8) SCC 728), j v. State NCT of Delhi and others AIR 19 that there before the t conviction whole. If allegations the compla offences ar that the com that event t by the High police statio fides of the It is the m evidence le accused per informant a the basis Dhanalaksh 1990 SC 4 Sharma, I.A Rupan Deo Singh Gill Kerala and SCC 651), 705), Rash (1997 (2) S NCT of De Bajaj v. St 1216). of the case would end in be read as a tion of the e on oath of e offence or rial to show vexatious, in interference lodged at the hen the mala importance. stigation and fate of the s against the t by itself be (See : Mrs. others (AIR er v. P. P. ) SCC 222), Kanwar Pal 4), State of rs (1999 (2) 996 (7) SCC umar Bhada te (Govt. of 728), Rajesh IR 1999 SC These These aspects were also highlighted in St ataka v. M. Devendrappa and another (20 Karnataka ” SCC 89).” in State of r (2002 (3) 7. Thus, the s, the ratio in the above-referred decision s ision serves as a binding caution th tion that the process of law cannot be p be permitted to continue where th ere the allegations, taken at their face val ce value, do not constitute any off ny offence. Coming to the merits of the f the case, it is evident that the en the entire prosecution rests on the allegation egations made by the Opposite Par te Party No.2-Informant. Therefore, the , the allegations appearing in the r the report are germane to the case registe registered by the CRLMC No. 348 of 2 of 2023 Page 6 of 8 EOW. From the r the report, it emerges that the Opposite P osite Party No.2- Informant, being a eing aggrieved by the conduct of the Petitio Petitioner, alleges that despite havi having received a sum of Rs.1,45,00 ,45,00,000/-, the Petitioner did not id not take steps for transfer of the minin mining lease in favour of the Oppo e Opposite Party No.2-Informant. Such alleg allegations are premised on the assertio ssertion that the Petitioner’s firm e firm entered into an agreement with the Opp he Opposite Party No.2-Informant pe permitting it to operate the quarry by v y by virtue of an irrevocable power power of attorney. Admittedly, however, on t er, on the date the alleged payment w ent was made to the Petitioner towards su rds such transfer, transfer of the lea he lease was not permissible in law under t nder the OMMC Rules, 2016. Con . Consequently, any agreement between ween the parties contrary to law ca law cannot be enforced. On the contrary, trary, a power of attorney, whether r ether revocable or irrevocable, granted by th by the Petitioner in favour of the Op the Opposite Party No.2-Informant is alway always subject to the will of the e the executant. Any violation of the ter he terms of the agreement or the g r the general power of attorney, if at all, is all, is a matter of civil dispute, and , and the parties to such privity may see ay seek redressal before a competen mpetent civil court by way of recovery or ry or appropriate directions. 8. In the mat e matter of Tarina Sen vs. Union of Ind India & Anr., 2024 INSC 752, , the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held th held that disputes arising out of cont f contractual or civil arrangements cannot b nnot be given the colour of crimin criminal prosecution in the absence of ce of the basic ingredients of the a f the alleged offences; read as follows: “15. Rel have held financial, of this Court, we 5. Relying on the earlier judgments of this t of commercial, held that in the matters arising out of c like such or cial, mercantile, civil, partnership or CRLMC No. 348 of 2 of 2023 Page 7 of 8 transactions to dowry, e private or their entire under Sect proceeding such cases the crimin oppression actions or the offences arising out of matrimo wry, etc. or family disputes where the wrong te or personal in nature and the parties ha entire dispute, the High Court should exercise r Section 482 CrPC for giving an end to t edings. We have held that the possibility of c cases is remote and bleak and as such, the con criminal proceedings would put the accuse ession and prejudice.” atrimony relating wrong is basically ies have resolved xercise its powers d to the criminal ty of conviction in he continuation of accused to great 9. In view of iew of the above, the allegations that prima f rima facie appear in the report pertai t pertain to a civil dispute, if any, to be reso e resolved before the appropriate ci iate civil forum, and there is no material aterial to justify continuation of the of the criminal proceeding against the Petiti Petitioner. 10. Hence, thi his Court is of the view that the report report lodged by the Opposite Part e Party No.2/Informant basing on which th hich the FIR has been registered, be red, bears no material prima facie to make o ake out the case in the offences all ces alleged and the same cannot proceed in eed in the eye of law and deserves serves to be quashed. Accordingly, the C the CRLMC is
Decision
disposed of. Bijay (Chittaranjan Da Judge n Dash) Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BIJAY KETAN SAHOO Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA Date: 22-Oct-2025 11:10:49 CRLMC No. 348 of 2 of 2023 Page 8 of 8