High Court of Orissa
Case Details
IN THE HIG E HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTT CUTTACK CRLMC No.245 of 2017 Sudhamayee Das Das …. Petitioner State of Orissa -versus- …. Opp. Party Mr. H.M. Dhal, Dhal, Advocate Mr. S.J. Mohanty, A , Addl. P. P. CORAM: THE HON’BLE BLE MR. JUSTICE CHITTARANJAN D JAN DASH Date of Judgment: 18.08.2025 Chittaranjan Dash, ash, J. 1. By means eans of this application, the Petitioner seek seeks to quash the FIR under Ann er Annexure-1 and the further proceeding in ing in G.R. Case No.468 of 2015 pe 015 pending before the learned S.D.J.M., Ka ., Karanjia. 2. The backg background facts of the case are that the P he Petitioner had availed a cash cre ash credit loan of Rs.47.00 lakhs and Ter Term Loan of Rs.57.00 lakhs, t khs, thus a total loan of Rs.1.04 Crores Crores, from the Mayurbhanj Centr Central Co-operative Bank Ltd., Karanjia ranjia Branch for installation of a cold storage under the name and sty style of M/s. Allied Cold Storag Storage Pvt. Ltd. The Petitioner in order rder to create the loan furnished land landed properties with building as collate collateral security besides mortgagin rtgaging the plant and machineries in fav in favour of the Bank. The Petitio etitioner, being the Managing Director o ctor of the cold storage, executed cuted necessary bonds In this regard to secu to secure the loan in favour of the f the Bank. However, the Petitioner defau defaulted in the repayment of loan f loan which remained outstanding to the t o the tune of Rs. CRLMC No. 245 of of 2017 Page 1 of 10 5,92,91,076/- as an as an 31.07.2015. The Branch Manager, C ager, Central Co- operative Ltd., Ma
Legal Reasoning
Mayurbhanj, lodged an FIR against the st the Petitioner, alleging that the t the Petitioner did not clear the outstanding nding dues to the Bank and instead stead sold out the mortgaged properties vid es vide sale deed dated 29.07.2015 .2015, ignoring the restrictions in selling the ng the mortgaged properties. On the n the basis of the complaint, the Karanj jia P.S. Case No.160 of 2015 wa 015 was registered against the Petitioner. Th er. The Petitioner assails the procee proceeding in the criminal case pursuant suant to the FIR lodged by the the Branch Manager, Central Co-opera operative Ltd., Mayurbhanj, prim primarily on the ground that the dispute b pute between the Parties are civil in ivil in nature pertaining to non-payment of o nt of outstanding dues and there is ere is no criminality involved in it. Accor According to the Petitioner, the Ban he Bank had sent a notice on 24.08.2015, requiring the Petitioner to cle clear the outstanding dues o to the the tune of Rs.5,92,91,076/- with interest within three days. As the As the Petitioner failed to repay the ay the loan within the said stipulated time d time, the Bank lodged the FIR. FIR. It is further case of the Petitione titioner that she responded to the to the notice of the Bank vide her le her letter dated 16.01.2007, wher whereupon the Bank had invited appl application for settlement of the f the loan accounts under OTS. The Regis Registrar of Co- Operative Society ociety, Odisha also called for a report on ort on the OTS proposal submitted mitted by the Petitioner but the Bank did no did not place any report. Again in th in the year 2010, a fresh proposal for OTS OTS was invited and the Petitione titioner, being the loanee, submitted appl application for settlement of the lo f the loan account but such proposal submitte ubmitted was also not considered an red and no communication was made in t e in that regard. According to the P o the Petitioner, it is because of the latches tches on the part of the Bank, the ou the outstanding dues escalated to Rs.5,92,91 ,92,91,076/-. The CRLMC No. 245 of of 2017 Page 2 of 10 Petitioner further s rther submits that in order to secure the loa the loan, she had mortgaged the p the property in question and had also d also executed mortgaged bond d ond dated 07.04.1998, and one of the coven covenants of the said mortgaged bo ed bond reads as follows:- “The Mortg ortgagor agrees that in case the mort mortgaged properties i ies is sold or re-mortgaged or given on w on will or transferred red by any other means, the Mortgagee agee Bank without follo following the terms of repayments, shall hall recall the entire ou re outstanding amount with interest at the the rate of 18½ % per per annum along with other expenses etc. etc. till to the date of f of full realisation”. 3. According ording to the Petitioner, she not only su nly submitted a proposal for OTS w TS with the Bank but also made representat esentations before various authorities o rities of the Government, whereupon the Re the Registrar, Co- operative Society, ciety, vide letter dated 22.07.2009, di 9, directed the Secretary, Central C ntral Co-operative Bank Ltd., Mayurbhanj, hanj, to consider the OTS proposal posal of the Petitioner with reference to ce to the points indicated therein. rein. The Bank compounded the quarter uarterly accrued interest with the pr the principal even though there was no def no default by the loanee in the paym payment of the loan. It is further submitt ubmitted that the loanee at times had es had made excess payments. It would fur ld further appear from the letter th tter that compound interest had been l een levied and, accordingly, the Ba the Bank was asked to submit the revised pro sed proposal with the resolution of the of the Bank for onward transmission of the of the same to the Government in the in the Co-operative Department. But the Ba the Bank did not submit the revised evised proposal, as is evident from the l the letter dated 08.08.2016 issued sued from the office of the Registrar, C rar, Co-operative CRLMC No. 245 of of 2017 Page 3 of 10 Society, Odisha. H ha. However, the Bank was once again re gain requested to submit a report to th rt to the Registrar. As a matte matter of fact, the Bank initiated a procee proceeding under Section 68 of the O the Odisha Co-operative Societies Act in D t in Dispute Case No. 82/07-08. The s . The said dispute was adjudicated and dispo
Decision
disposed of vide order dated 31.10 31.10.2009, wherein a decree for a su a sum of Rs. 1,60,72,801.46 was 6 was passed. The said decree was never cha ver challenged by the Bank before th ore the higher forum and, as such, it attain attained finality, and the decree so p e so passed was executable under the provis provisions of the OCS Act, but the Ba the Bank has not initiated any execution pro on proceeding for realisation of the de the decretal dues. It is furthe further the case of the Petitioner that subseq subsequent to the lodging of the FIR, FIR, the Bank also filed a suit bearing C.S. g C.S. No. 101 of 2016 before the Co he Court of Civil Judge (S.D.), Karanjia, to jia, to declare the sale deed dated 29.0 ed 29.07.2015 executed by the Petitioner in ner in favour of a third party, relegati legating the mortgaged properties, as null a null and void. In the said suit, the lo the loanee, i.e., the Petitioner, and the purc e purchaser have been arrayed as defe as defendants. The Petitio Petitioner respectfully submits that the gen he genesis of the prosecution being o eing one for non-payment of the loan amo n amount availed by the Petitioner, a ner, and further that the Bank had already lready resorted to the provision unde under Section 68 of the OCS Act, and , and further the challenge by the B the Bank to declare the action of the P the Petitioner in alienating the mortg mortgaged property in favour of the third p third party as null and void, no crimin criminal act apparently appears from the ac the action of the Petitioner, but the ut the entire gamut of allegations rests rests upon civil consequences. This . This is further because the covenant und t under the fund CRLMC No. 245 of of 2017 Page 4 of 10 categorically disclo discloses that, in the event the mortgaged gaged property is sold, re-mortgaged, aged, given on will, or transferred by any ot any other means, the mortgagee Bank e Bank, without following the terms of repay f repayment, shall recall the entire out ire outstanding amount with interest at the r t the rate of 18½ % per annum alo m along with other expenses till the da the date of full realisation. The Ba he Bank too has recalled the entire outsta outstanding dues and, as such, the , the lodging of the complaint and initiat initiation of the criminal proceeding eeding is just an abuse of the process of law of law, while the same has only civil y civil consequences. Hence, the learned cou ed counsel for the Petitioner submits f eeding. mits for quashing of the criminal proceeding 4. Mr. Moha Mohanty, learned counsel for the State, on ate, on the other hand, opposed the ed the contentions of the learned couns counsel for the Petitioner and subm submitted that there was criminal intent on ent on the part of the Petitioner, as th , as the Petitioner, ignoring all the covenant venants under the Fund, preferred to ed to sell the properties, knowing them to em to have been mortgaged with the ith the Bank, in order to evade the Bank fro nk from realizing the outstanding loan g loan upon the sale of the mortgaged prope properties. 5. Mr. Dhal, Dhal, learned counsel for the Petitioner relie er relied upon the decisions in the mat he matter of Usha Chakraborty & another V her Vs. State of West Bengal and nd another reported in (2023) 15 SCC 13 CC 135, wherein the Hon’ble Suprem upreme Court held as follows:- akhand, this “8. In Para Court held: ( "12. Wh 482 of t This pow purpose court or a comp depends Paramjeet Batra v. State of Uttarakhand held: (SCC p. 676, para 12) 2. While exercising its jurisdiction under S 2 of the Code the High Court has to be cau is power is to be used sparingly and only f rpose of preventing abuse of the process o urt or otherwise to secure ends of justice. W complaint discloses a criminal offence o pends upon the nature of the facts alleged th nder Section be cautious. only for the cess of any ice. Whether ence or not eged therein. CRLMC No. 245 of of 2017 Page 5 of 10 Whether present o complain have a c whether nature is situation adopted should n to preven hether essential ingredients of criminal offen esent or not has to be judged by the High Co mplaint disclosing civil transactions may ve a criminal texture. But the High Court mu hether a dispute which is essentially of a ture is given a cloak of criminal offence. In tuation, if a civil remedy is available and is, i opted as has happened in this case, the High ould not hesitate to quash the criminal proce prevent abuse of process of the court." l offence are igh Court. A s may also urt must see y of a civil ce. In such a nd is, in fact, High Court proceedings ××× in the first n if they are ted in their y offence or is Court held e purpose of permitted to hajan Lal, a the statutory and held as out a case against the accused. Kapil Aggarwal v. Sanjay Sharma, this Cou ection 482 is designed to achieve the purp ng that criminal proceedings are not permit ate into weapons of harassment. the decision in State of Haryana v. Bhajan udge Bench of this Court considered the sta ions as also the earlier decisions and he : (SCC pp. 378-79, para 102) 02.... (1) Where the allegations made in th formation report or the complaint, even if th ken at their face value and accepted in tirety do not prima facie constitute any offe 10. In Kapil that Section ensuring tha generate into 11. In the de two-Judge B provisions a under: (SCC "102.... informat taken at entirety make ou ) Where the allegations in the first inform (2) Whe port and other materials, if any, accompanyi report an R do not disclose a cognizable offence, just FIR do n investigation by police officers under S an inves 6(1) of the Code except under an order 156(1) o agistrate within the purview of Section 155 Magistra e Code. the Code ) Where the uncontroverted allegations ma (3) Whe e FIR or complaint and the evidence collec the FIR pport of the same do not disclose the comm support any offence and make out a case again of any cused. accused. ) Where the allegations in the FIR d (4) Wh nstitute a cognizable offence but constitute constitut investigatio non-cog cognizable offence, no information panying the e, justifying der Section order of a on 155(2) of ns made in collected in commission against the IR do not titute only a is tigation CRLMC No. 245 of of 2017 Page 6 of 10 n order of a on 155(2) of the FIR or improbable on can ever cient ground rmitted by a police officer without an orde permitte agistrate as contemplated under Section 155 Magistra e Code. the Code ) Where the allegations made in the F (5) Wh mplaint are so absurd and inherently impro complain the basis of which no prudent person can on the b ach a just conclusion that there is sufficient g reach a j r proceeding against the accused. for proce ) Where there is an express legal bar engraf (6) Whe y of the provisions of the Code or th any of ncerned (under which a criminal proceed concerne stituted) to the institution and continuance instituted oceedings and/or where is a sp proceedi ovision in the Code or the concerned provisio oviding efficacious redress for the grievance providin grieved party. aggrieve there engrafted in or the Act roceeding is uance of the a specific cerned Act, vance of the (7) Wh attended is malici wreaking to spite h manifestly ) Where a criminal proceeding is man e proceeding tended with mala fide and/or where the proce r motive for maliciously instituted with an ulterior moti reaking vengeance on the accused and with a with a view grudge. spite him due to private and personal grudge ××× 20. As not commission 423, 467, appellants. ingredients would revea not carry t alleged offen complaint th the responde appellants h injury eithe under such deliver any the position punishable u 120-B IPC. referred to h s noticed hereinbefore, the respondent a ission of offences under Sections 323, 384 467, 468, 420 and 120-B IPC agains ants. A bare perusal of the said allegation a ients to attract them, as adverted to herein reveal that the allegations are vague and th arry the essential ingredients to constitu d offences. There is absolutely no allegation laint that the appellants herein had caused h spondent so also, they did not reveal a case th ants had intentionally put the respondent in f either to himself or another or by puttin h fear or injury, dishonestly induced h r any property or valuable security. The sa osition with respect to the alleged of able under Sections 406. 423. 467, 468, 42 IPC. The ingredients to attract the alleged o ed to hereinbefore and the nature of the alleg dent alleged 3, 384, 406, against the tion and the hereinbefore and they did nstitute the gation in the used hurt on case that the ent in fear of putting him uced him to The same is ed offences 68, 420 and eged offence e allegations CRLMC No. 245 of of 2017 Page 7 of 10 respondent pondent had e appellants eal that the ceedings are ther that the nature. The n a cloak of stance when vailable civil decision in ave quashed buse of the with the fact h is of civil roached the il suit and it ct to the fact ent is to use harassment acts that the in the year nterim relief retary of the steeship, that order for ith absence right to get lso the trust, ned in the application filed by the respo contained in undoubtedly make it clear that the responde would undou to make specific allegation against the app failed to ma in respect of the aforesaid offences. herein in res he factual position thus would reveal th 21. The fac is as also the purpose of criminal proceedin genesis as a g but the aforesaid incident and further th nothing but e involved is essentially of civil nature dispute inv ants b and the respondents have given a clo appellants b al offence in the issue. In such circumstance criminal offe spondent had already resorted to the availabl the responde y and it is pending, going by the decisi remedy and jeet Batra, the High Court would have qu Paramjeet B riminal proceedings to prevent the abuse the criminal ss of the Court but for the concealment. process of th the aforesaid circumstances, coupled with th 22. In the af n respect of the issue involved, which is o that in respe , the respondent had already approach nature, the ictional civil court by instituting a civil suit jurisdictiona ding, there can be no doubt with respect to th is pending, t e attempt on the part of the respondent is that the atte riminal proceedings as weapon of haras the crimina t the appellants. The indisputable facts th against the dent has filed the pending title suit in the respondent he got no case that he obtained an interim 2015, he go t his removal from the office of Secretary against his r l Managing Committee as also the trusteeshi School Man led the stated application for an orde th he filed igation only in April 2017 together with ab investigation ase that despite such removal he got a right of a case tha ed of the affairs of the school and also the informed of only support the said conclusion. would only s r all these reasons, we are of the considered 23. For all t his case invites invocation of the power that this ca n 482 CrPC to quash the FIR registered bas Section 482 rection of the Magistrate Court in the afore the direction ation and all further proceeding in purs application f. Also, we have no hesitation to hold thereof. Als tting continuance of the criminal procee permitting t the appellants in the aforesaid circums against the sidered view ower under red based on e aforestated n pursuance o hold that proceedings ircumstances CRLMC No. 245 of of 2017 Page 8 of 10 would result miscarriage result in abuse of the process of court and a rriage of justice.” t and also in 6. Coming to ing to the case in hand, admittedly the Pet he Petitioner had obtained a loan from an from the Mayurbhanj Central Co-operati perative Bank in order to establish h lish his business of cold storage in the nam e name and style of M/s. Allied Col d Cold Storage Pvt. Ltd. The Petitioner ner continued to repay the loan; how ; however, he defaulted in repayment. The e . The effort of the Petitioner in getting getting the loan amount settled with the Ba the Bank through an OTS plan was was never considered. On the contrary, ntrary, the Bank admittedly proceed oceeded under Section 68 of the OCS Act S Act to recover the loan amount, an unt, and the decree passed upon adjudication ication of the said proceeding under S nder Section 68 of the OCS Act could not b d not be finalized upon execution of th n of the said decree. As seen from the impu impugned order, the outstanding d ing dues recoverable have been show shown to be Rs.1,60,72,801.46, 1.46, whereas the Bank lodged the repo report showing outstanding of Rs.5 f Rs.5,92,91,076/-, which is not in conformi nformity with the amount sought to be t to be recovered from the Petitioner upon a upon adjudication of the proceeding. ding. Subsequently, the Bank also moved oved against the action of the Petit Petitioner in alienating the mortgaged p aged property in favour of a third pa ird party, challenging it before the appropria ropriate Court of civil jurisdiction, i.e ion, i.e., the Civil Judge, Senior Division, in ion, in Civil Suit No.101 of 2016. 7. dless Needless to mention, the Petitioner had e had executed a mortgage bond w nd with the Bank, and the covenant nant thereof, at Annexure-4, specifi specifically stipulates that in the event, the the mortgaged property is sold, re old, re-mortgaged, bequeathed, or transferr ansferred by any other means, the B the Bank shall recall the entire outstanding anding dues with interest. There is n re is nothing in the said mortgage bond bond to indicate CRLMC No. 245 of of 2017 Page 9 of 10 initiation of any crim ny criminal proceeding. Even otherwise, the se, the ingredients to attract the allege alleged offences referred to in the FIR, as R, as well as the proceeding in G.R n G.R. Case No.468 of 2015 and the d the nature of allegations contende ntended in the application filed by the Petitio Petitioner, would undoubtedly give r give rise to a civil action, and there is no is no material to indicate that the co the conduct of the Petitioner would be am be amenable to criminal action. 8. In view of iew of the above reasons, this court is of the of the considered view that the mater material appearing in the case is fit for inv for invocation of the power under Se der Section 482 and the same being absolu absolutely in the nature of dispute in in the civil side, the proceeding in the cr the criminal case deserves to be quash e quashed. The CRLMC is disposed of accord accordingly. (Chittaranjan Da n Dash) Judge Bijay Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BIJAY KETAN SAHOO Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA Date: 22-Aug-2025 16:40:45 CRLMC No. 245 of of 2017 Page 10 of 10