The High Court
Case Details
Order No. 01. IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK CRLMC. No. 406 of 2023 Radha Govinda Panda … Petitioner State of Odisha
Legal Reasoning
Mr. P.K.Mishra , Advocate -Versus - …. Opposite Party Additional Standing Counsel CORAM: JUSTICE SASHIKANTA MISHRA
Decision
ORDER 27.07.2023 1. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode. 2. The petitioner is one of the accused persons in G.R. case No. 234 of 2019 pending in the Court of learned S.D.J.M., Paralakhemundi. The said case emanates from a complaint filed by two persons namely, Limmaka Rajkumar and Karakavalasa H.N.Prasad in the Court below, which was sent to the IIC of Paralakhemundi Police Station for registration and investigation under Section 156 (3) of Cr.P.C. In so far as allegations are concerned, it is stated that one S. Simanchalam Reddy, who was working as the Sub-inspector of Excise Department and the present petitioner lured the complainants on the false pretext of arranging jobs for them in the Indian Railways and as such, convinced them to pay Rs. 2,00,000/- to them for the purpose. Subsequently however, it is revealed that the accused persons had no connection with the Indian Railways and had taken the money fraudulently from the complainants. Accordingly, the FIR was registered as Paralakhemundi P.S. Case No. 92 dated Page 1 of 4 12.04.2019 under Sections 408/415/418/420/464/466/468/474/34 of IPC followed by investigation. Upon completion of investigation, charge-sheet was submitted under Sections 420/474/416/419/465/34 of IPC. On 01.07.2021, the Court below took cognizance of the offences and issued process. The present application has been filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. by accused Radha Govinda Panda for quashment of the order taking cognizance and issuing summons to him to appear. 4. Heard Mr. P.K.Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. S.N. Das, learned Additional Standing counsel for the State. 5. Mr. Mishra has forcefully argued that though the name of the petitioner finds place in the FIR, yet none of the witnesses examined by the I.O. during investigation having whispered his name much less speak about his complicity in the alleged occurrence. Even one of the complainants, namely Limmaka Rajkumar in the statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. categorically admitted that he does not know Radha Govinda Panda. As such, it is submitted that continuance of the criminal proceedings without any specific material against the petitioner would be a travesty of justice. 6. Mr. S.N. Das fairly submits on instructions that the petitioner’s name finds place in the F.I.R. but none of the witnesses examined during investigation stated his name nor made any allegations. It is also admitted that one of the complainants, namely, Limmaka Rajkumar expressed his ignorance about the petitioner. 7. The power of the High Court to quash the criminal proceeding invoking the power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. Page 2 of 4 has been discussed time and again. This Court can do no more than to the refer to the celebrated decision of the Apex Court in the case State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335: wherein several guidelines were laid down for exercise of inherent powers of the High Court for immediate reference paragraph is quoted herein below: the the allegations made 102. In the backdrop of the interpretation of the various relevant provisions of the Code under Chapter XIV and of the principles of law enunciated by this Court in a series of decisions relating to the exercise of the extraordinary power under Article 226 or the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code which we have extracted and reproduced above, we give the following categories of cases by way of illustration wherein such power could be exercised either to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice, though it may not be possible to lay down any precise, clearly defined and sufficiently channelised and inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae and to give an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases wherein such power should be exercised. first in (1) Where 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 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 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 offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as 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 the accused. Page 3 of 4 (6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific 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 the attended with mala 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. fide and/or where 8. It is evident that criminal case being a serious matter cannot be resorted to routinely as a matter of course. Unless there are materials to prima facie show the involvement of a person in the alleged occurrence, it would not be proper to allow a criminal proceeding to run against him. In view of what has been discussed hereinbefore this Court has no hesitation in holding that allowing the criminal proceedings in the instant case to continue would certainly amount to an abuse process of the Court and therefore, calls for intervention by this Court. 9. In the result, the CRLMC is allowed. The criminal proceedings in G.R. Case No. 234 of 2019 arising out of Paralakhemundi P.S. Case No. 92 of 2019 insofar as it relates to accused Radha Govinda Panda are hereby quashed. (Sashikanta Mishra) Judge Deepak Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: DEEPAK PARIDA Reason: Authentication Location: OHC, Cuttack Date: 31-Jul-2023 19:34:00 Page 4 of 4