The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK CRLMP No. 137 of 2024 Biswajit Pattnaik Petitioner Mr. Priya Ranjan Singh, Advocate …. State of Odisha & Others …. -versus- Opp. Parties Mr. Debasish Biswal, ASC CORAM: JUSTICE CHITTARANJAN DASH Order No.
Decision
ORDER 09.02.2024 01. 1. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner and the State. 2. By means of this application, the Petitioner seeks to invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking to quash the F.I.R. in connection with Cyber Crime & Economic Offence, Bhubaneswar P.S. Case No.11 of 2022 registered under Section 228(A) & 500 of the I.P.C. read with Section 67(A) of the I.T. Act corresponding to C.T. Case No.1452 of 2022 pending in the court of the learned S.D.J.M., Bhubaneswar. 3. The background facts of the case are that, on 01.02.2022 Opp. Party No.5 namely Bishnu Priya Mohapatra, w/o. Kailash Ch. Mohapatra lodged a complaint before the SP, CID, CB, Buxi Bazar, Cuttack alleging therein that she was victim in Khandagiri P.S. Case No.372 of 2018 for the offences under Sections 376/384/506, I.P.C. In the said case the present Petitioner is an accused, and after Page 1 of 6 // 2 // registration of the said F.I.R., the Petitioner was arrested on 22.07.2019. Before his arrest, the Petitioner on 20.06.2019 misusing the social media, in his Facabook account had posted some derogatory, defamatory and misleading information against her (Opp. Party No.5), wherein he too had uploaded the F.I.R. copy of Khandagiri P.S. Case No.372 of 2018. It is further alleged that, 12 persons liked the aforesaid derogatory/ defamatory posting in the Facebook. On the basis of the aforesaid complaint, Bhubaneswar Cyber Crime & Economic Offence No.11 of 2012 registered the complaint under Sections 228(A) & 500 of the I.P.C. and under Section 67(A) of the I.T. Act against the Petitioner. 4. According to the learned counsel for the Petitioner, the allegations are false, baseless and the Petitioner is no way connected with the alleged offence/crime, for which F.I.R. has been lodged. The learned counsel for the Petitioner submitted that there is absolutely no prima facie case and material constituting the offence is made out against the Petitioner under Section 67(A) of the I.T. Act from the F.I.R. story and other connected materials. 5. Learned counsel for the Petitioner further submits that, as far as the offence under Sections 228(A) & 500, I.P.C. are concerned, both the offences prescribes punishment for a period of only two years imprisonment. According to the learned counsel, as per the F.I.R., the alleged occurrence took place on 20.06.2019 and the complaint was lodged with the police on 05.03.2022, which is quite belated. The primary contention of the learned counsel for the Petitioner seeking quashing of the F.I.R. is that the cause of action of the alleged incident has taken place at Baseli Sahi, Puri, whereas the Page 2 of 6 // 3 // complaint has been registered by the Cyber Crime & Economic Offence at Bhubaneswar, and therefore it has no territorial jurisdiction to investigate into the complaint. He further submits that, the occurrence spot being 60 kms. away from the Police Station where the F.I.R. has been lodged, the investigation into the said F.I.R. cannot be proceeded and the same is liable to be quashed. 6. Learned counsel for the State on the other hand vehemently opposed the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the Petitioner and submitted that the investigation of the case cannot be interfered with by invoking jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 7. Having considered the arguments placed by both the parties, on perusal of the contention raised by the learned counsel for the Petitioner in his application and upon appreciation thereof, it is found that prima facie there are materials depicting commission of the offence as alleged. There being ample materials to proceed with the investigation, this Court is not inclined to exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction to interfere with the merit of the F.I.R. 8. It is the settled principle of law that, invoking its extraordinary power under Article 226 of the Constitution, the Court has no jurisdiction to examine the correctness or otherwise of the allegation. The Apex Court in the matter of State of Haryana and Others vs. Bhajan Lal and Others, AIR 1992 SC 604, in paragraph- 109, delineated the guidelines as under :- “109. We also give a note of caution to the effect that the power of quashing a criminal proceeding should be exercised very sparingly and with circumspection and that Page 3 of 6 // 4 // too in the rarest of rare cases; that the Court will not be justified in embarking upon an enquiry as to the reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made in the F.I.R. or the complaint and that the extraordinary or inherent powers do not confer an arbitrary jurisdiction on the Court to act according to its whim or caprice.” In the backdrop of the aforesaid principle, this Court is not in agreement with the contentions put forth by the learned counsel for the Petitioner that, to quash and set aside the impugned F.I.R the Court need to delve into the genuineness or correctness of the FIR invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court. In case this Court proceeds to appreciate the allegations of the Petitioner, it would amount to conducting a judicial enquiry, which is not permissible for this Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 9. However, the learned counsel for the Petitioner harped on the circumstances that the Cyber Crime & Economic Offence, UPD, Bhubaneswar P.S., where the F.I.R. has been lodged, have no territorial jurisdiction to investigate into the crime, as no part of the cause of action arose thereunder, and as such the investigation allegedly conducted by the said Police Station is without jurisdiction and power, for which he sought for quashing of the F.I.R. as in the given facts and circumstances of the case it cannot be interfered with. 10. The powers of investigation into cognizable offences are contained in Chapter XII of the Cr.P.C. Section 154 of the said Chapter deals with the information in cognizable offences, whereas Section 156 deals with investigation into cognizable offence. Page 4 of 6 // 5 // 11. Sub-section (2) of Section 156, Cr.P.C. stipulates that no proceeding of a police officer in any such case shall at any stage be called in question on the ground that the case was one which such officer was not empowered under this section to investigate. However, the law postulates that, after completion of the investigation, the result of such investigation is required to be forwarded, as contemplated under Sections 168, 169 & 170, Cr.P.C. At this stage, reliance is kept on the exposition in the matter of Satvinder Kaur vs. State (Government of NCT Delhi) reported in (1999) 8 SCC 728, wherein the Apex Court in paragraph-10 held thus :- “10. It is true that territorial jurisdiction also is prescribed under sub-section (1) to the extent that the officer5 can investigate any cognizable case which a court having jurisdiction over the local area within the limits of such police station would have power to enquire into or try under the provisions of Chapter XIII. However, sub- section (2) makes the position clear by providing that no proceeding of a police officer in any such case shall at any stage be called in question on the ground that the case was one which such officer was not empowered to investigate. After investigation is completed, the result of such investigation is required to be submitted as provided under Sections 168, 169 and 170. Section 170 specifically provides that, if, upon an investigation, it appears to the officer in charge of the police station that there is sufficient evidence or reasonable ground of suspicion to justify the forwarding of the accused to a Magistrate, such officer shall forward the accused under custody to a Magistrate empowered to take cognizance of the offence upon a police report and to try the accused or commit for trial. Further, if the investigating officer arrives at the conclusion that the crime was not committed within the territorial jurisdiction Page 5 of 6 // 6 // of the police station, the FIR can be forwarded to the police station having jurisdiction over the area in which the crime is committed. But this would not mean that in a case which requires investigation, the police officer can refuse to record the FIR and/or investigate it.” 12. In view of the settled principle of law, as mentioned above, this Court is unable to persuade itself to appreciate the contentions put forth by the learned counsel for the Petitioner to interfere in the investigation of the crime allegedly to have been lodged with the Cyber Crime & Economic Offence, UPD, Bhubaneswar. At this stage, when the investigation is in progress, the impugned F.I.R. cannot be quashed and set aside on the alleged ground that no part of offence is committed within the territorial jurisdiction where the police station situates and that the I.O. has no jurisdiction to investigate into it. It is made clear that the materials collected by the I.O., if any, in the meanwhile in connection with the aforesaid Cyber Crime & Economic Offence Bhubaneswar P.S. Case No.11 of 2022 have been by judicial scrutiny for arriving at a conclusion that the police officer of the particular P.S. would not have territorial jurisdiction. The investigation, therefore, being within the exclusive domain of the I.O. concerned, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the same to quash the F.I.R. by invoking its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The prayer to quash the F.I.R. is accordingly rejected and the CRLMP stands dismissed. Signature Not Verified Judge (Chittaranjan Dash) Digitally Signed Signed by: SAMIR KUMAR PARIDA Designation: ADR-cum-ADDL. PRINCIPAL SECRETARY Reason: Authentic Copy Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK S.K. Parida Date: 12-Feb-2024 19:37:46 Page 6 of 6