The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK CRLMP No.321 of 2022 Sangita Pattnaik … Petitioner Mr. B.P.B. Bahali, Advocate -versus- State of Odisha & others … Opposite Parties Mr. T.K. Praharaj, SC CORAM: JUSTICE G. SATAPATHY ORDER(ORAL) 05.09.2024 Order No. 06. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual/Physical Mode). 2. The petitioner by invoking the power of the Court under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India has prayed to set aside the Final Report No.366 of 2019 in connection with G.R. Case No.911 of 2019
Legal Reasoning
arising out of Nabarangpur P.S. Case No. 288 of 2019 pending in the file of learned S.D.J.M., Nabarangpur and to direct de-novo investigation by fresh team of investigators to be headed by a Senior Police Officer of the State. 3. The short facts involved in this case are that the news item “Operation Blackout” aired by KANAK NEWS channel on 22.11.2019 and the news published in daily newspaper “the SAMBAD” on 22.11.2019 of Bhubaneswar Edition in the matter relating to Page 1 of 9 corruption committed by electrical staff with regard to distribution of electricity to the consumer by giving priority and favour to some private entity for personal gain and for obtaining illegal gratification from a private company by showing undue favour in implementing unauthorized power cut under the area of operation, the OP No.5-Superintending Engineer, Electrical lodged an FIR against one Bhagaban Pradhan, the Assistant Executive Engineer, Electrical, Nabarangpur Southco Utility. Accordingly, Nabarangpur P.S. Case No. 288 of 2019 was registered and the matter was investigated into, but the Investigating Officer finding insufficient evidence to prosecute the accused Bhagaban Pradhan has submitted a final report in the aforesaid case which is now the subject matter of challenge in the present CRLMP. 4.
Legal Reasoning
In the course of hearing, Mr. B.P.B. Bahali, learned counsel for the petitioner by drawing attention of the Court to the photocopy of charge sheet appended to the CRLMP petition submits that although it is a true case, but the Investigating Agency has submitted a final report for insufficient evidence to proceed against the accused Bhagaban Pradhan, Ex-in-charge Assistant Executive Engineer, Electrical, Nabarangpur Southco, however, the fact Page 2 of 9 remains that the “video clippings” and the “news item” which was published in the newspaper clearly incriminate the accused and notwithstanding to the above fact, the IO has submitted a final report despite holding it to be a true case for reason best known to it. Further, Mr. Bahali also submits that the petitioner is a social activist-cum-lawyer and also a public spirited person and thereby, has filed this CRLMP to bring truth before the general public and the petitioner can also maintain an application under Articles 226 of the Constitution of India to seek for a relief to set aside the final report, even though he is not the informant in this case. In order to buttress his submission with regard to locus standi of the petitioner to bring this petition before this Court, Mr. Bahali relies upon the decisions in the case of Amanullah and Others vs. State of Bihar and Others; AIR 2016 SC 1871 and Sheo Nandan Paswan vs. State of Bihar; AIR 1987 SC 877. 5. On the other hand, Mr. T.K. Praharaj, learned Standing Counsel submits that the petitioner in this case is a resident of Cuttack, but the alleged occurrence had taken place in Nabarangpur area and thereby, the petitioner has tried to settle down the score against the accused by bringing a Public Interest Litigation in the guise of CRLMP, since Page 3 of 9 neither the petitioner is the informant, nor is she aggrieved by any action of the accused person and the present CRLMP is a motivated one to add and assist someone else, who has set up the petitioner in this case to settle his personal vendetta. Mr.Praharaj accordingly prays to dismiss the CRLMP. 6. After having duly considered the rival submissions upon perusal of record, this Court admittedly finds the FIR to have been lodged by OP No.5 against the Assistant Engineer working in Nabarangpur Southco and the alleged offence was committed in Nabarangpur area. It is also not disputed that the FIR of OP No.5 was registered and the matter was investigated into by the Investigating Officer, who submitted a final report for want of evidence to proceed against the accused, no matter, the Investigating Officer had concluded it to be a true case for offences U/Ss. 166/406 of IPC. The copy of charge sheet as made available to this Court by learned counsel for the petitioner also discloses that the Investigating Agency has not only examined many witnesses, but also examined important witnesses like the Chief Editor of KANAK News, the Chief Editor of the SAMBAD daily newspaper and many persons related to this case. Not only the Investigating Officer examined these witnesses, but Page 4 of 9 also had examined the local consumers of Raighar and Nabarangpur area. The Investigating Officer has also found to have stated in the final form that no noticeable/abnormal disruption of supply of electricity was noticed and during the incumbency of Mr. Bhagaban Pradhan, the supply of electricity was normal in Malkangiri as he learnt from the consumers of said area. Besides, the I.O. has stated in the final form that the consumers of Nabarangpur and Umerkote Raighar area had never made any complain regarding power supply and the supply was normal in those areas. The I.O., however, has taken note of the “Sting Operation Blackout” to consider the present case to be a true case for offences U/Ss. 166/406 of IPC, but he could not collect such video clippings as the KANAK News authority had denied to supply the original video/Sting Operation Video clip and also denied to name the persons, who had done the sting operations on the ground of their trade secrecy. Mr. Bahali has, however, argued that had the Police collected the video clipping, the culprit could not have been able to go scot-free, but it appears from the record that the I.O. has also issued notice U/S.91 of CrPC to the KANAK News authority for production of video clipping, but it remained in vain. Page 5 of 9 7. Additionally, it is also an admitted fact that the petitioner is a resident of Cuttack as found from the address given by her in the cause title and the alleged occurrence took place in the Nabarangpur area. Indisputedly, the FIR has been lodged by Superintending Engineer-cum-OP5 against the Assistant Engineer, but the petitioner has never stated to be a consumer of electricity under Nabarangpur area, where the alleged incident occurred. It is of course true that when any citizen can lodge an First Information Report or file a complaint to set the machinery of the criminal law into motion and as such, his locus standi cannot be questioned, then why a citizen who finds the prosecution for an offence against the society is being wrongly withdrawn, cannot oppose such withdrawl as held by the Apex Court in Sheo Nandan Paswan (supra). However, the present case, the law was set into motion by the Superintending Engineer himself by way of lodging of an FIR and if the investigating agency has failed to proceed properly in the process of investigation, it is the informant he should be aggrieved and it is up to him to challenge the investigation. It is also equally true that in Amanullah (supra), the Apex has relied upon the decision in the case of P.S.R. Sandhanantham Vrs. Page 6 of 9 Arunanchalam; (1980) 3 SCC 141, wherein a constitutional Bench of Apex Court in paragraph-13 has held as under:- “13. It is true that the strictest vigilance over abuse of the process of the court, especially at the expensively exalted level of the Supreme Court, should be maintained and ordinarily meddlesome bystanders should not be granted “visa”. It is also true that in the criminal jurisdiction this strictness applies a fortiori since an adverse verdict from this Court may result in irretrievable injury to life or liberty.” 8. Be that as it may, even though the locus standi of the petitioner is to be conceded, but on a bare reading of the copy of charge-sheet, it cannot be said that the investigation was perfunctory merely because the IO has opined that it is a true case and there is insufficient evidence to prosecute the accused Bhagaban Pradhan which opinion of the IO was on the basis of the news contained in video clipping which was neither produced nor seized nor seen the light of day. Further, the probative value of such video clipping has never been assessed to. Even then, the informant is at liberty to approach the appropriate forum in accordance with law, if he is dissatisfied with the result of investigation, but it is not the case that the informant is aggrieved by the result of the investigation. Further, it is also not Page 7 of 9 known as to whether the final report submitted by the investigating officer has been accepted by the jurisdictional Court or not, but the final report was submitted way back on 18.09.2020. Nevertheless, the petitioner has prayed for setting aside the final report submitted by the IO, but without impleading the accused in the present CRLMP and in such situation, when the petitioner is no way connected with the litigation, rather a whistle blower according to her, but the accused definitely has a right to be heard when there is insufficient evidence in the criminal proceeding instituted against him before setting aside the final report and directing a fresh investigation which is prayed for by a stranger in the guise of a spirited person. This may not be applicable when the jurisdictional Court while disagreeing with the final report asks for further investigation inasmuch as it is the settled principle of law in such situation. 9. In the above circumstances, this Court does not feel it convincing to interfere in the matter to set aside the final report because the jurisdictional Magistrate on receipt of final report has three options left to him, firstly; he may accept the report and drop the proceeding, secondly; he may take cognizance of offence by disagreeing with the final report and Page 8 of 9 thirdly; he may direct further investigation by not accepting the final report. Thus, the choice is before the jurisdictional Magistrate to exercise any of the three options, but the petitioner craves leave of this Court to set aside the final report, which was submitted way back on 18.09.2020 and this Court, therefore, is not inclined to set aside the final report submitted by the IO and to direct for de-novo investigation in the matter. 10. Accordingly, the present CRLMP being devoid of merit stands dismissed on contest, but there is no order as to costs. (G. Satapathy) Judge kishore Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: KISHORE KUMAR SAHOO Designation: Secretary Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa Date: 06-Sep-2024 10:45:25 Page 9 of 9