The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK CRLMC NO.946 OF 2023 (From an order dated 13th January, 2023 passed by the learned S.D.J.M., Bhadrak in G.R. Case No.273 of 2020) Sudhir Kumar Panda … Petitioner -versus- State of Odisha and another … Opposite Parties Advocates appeared in the case through hybrid mode: For Petitioner: Mr.Dayananda Mohapatra, Advocate -versus- For Opp.Party No.1: Mr.S.N. Das, Addl. Standing Counsel --------------------------------------------------------------------------- CORAM: JUSTICE SASHIKANTA MISHRA JUDGMENT 30.8.2023. CRLMC No.946 of 2023 Page 1 of 11 Sashikanta Mishra,J. In the present application filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., the Petitioner seeks quashment of the criminal proceedings in G.R. Case No.273/2020 of the Court of learned S.D.J.M., Bhadrak. 2. The facts of the case are that the Opposite Party No.2-complainant filed complaint being I.C.C. Case No.460/2019 in the Court below which, after being investigated under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. has been registered as the aforementioned G.R. Case. The case of the complainant is that after expiry of her husband she wanted to purchase a land to construct a house thereon. The accused-Sudhir Kumar Panda allegedly met her and assured to arrange a land with road facility at a reasonable price. The complainant accepted such proposal. Subsequently, an agreement for sale was executed and registered by the real owner Manjulata Lenka and Subhadra Bhanja. It was followed by execution of registered sale deed on 13th June, 2012 for sale of a plot of land in favour of the complainant. In the said sale deed a sketch map was CRLMC No.946 of 2023 Page 2 of 11 appended showing the particulars of the plot. The land was also mutated in favour of the complainant and R.O.R. was issued in her favour. On 25th December, 2018, when the complainant went to the spot for construction of building and discussed with the local persons, she found that there was no road as mentioned in the sale deed. When the complainant brought up this matter with the Petitioner, he assured that an approach road would be available in March, 2019. Despite expiry of said period and on repeated requests, the Petitioner failed to keep his promise. On 8th December, 2019 at about 5 P.M. when the complainant and another person met the Petitioner and other accused persons and asked about the road, he abused her in obscene language and also assaulted her by giving slaps and kicks to her. He also pulled the saree of the complainant causing her to be half naked and threw a stone at her head which luckily missed her. He also snatched away her hand bag wherein Rs.570/- was kept. On the same day the complainant lodged a written complaint at the Bhadrak Rural P.S., CRLMC No.946 of 2023 Page 3 of 11 but on 15th December, 2019, the I.I.C. refused to take any action and suggested to file a case against the accused persons. The complaint being registered as I.C.C. Case No.460/2019 was forwarded by the learned S.D.J.M. to the I.I.C. of Bhadrak Rural P.S. to register a case and to investigate into the allegations. Pursuant to such direction, Bhadrak Rural P.S. case No.92/2020 was registered under Sections 420/294/323/354 /506/34 of I.P.C. After completion of investigation charge sheet was submitted only against the present Petitioner under the aforementioned Sections of I.P.C. Subsequently, the Court below took cognizance of the offences and charge was also framed for the aforementioned offences. 3.
Legal Reasoning
Heard Mr. D. Mohapatra, learned counsel for the Petitioner, and Mr. S.N.Das, learned Addl. Standing Counsel for the State. The complainant was impleaded as an Opposite Party No.2 and notice was issued, which was validly served upon her on 30th March, 2023 as evident from the A.D. received by the CRLMC No.946 of 2023 Page 4 of 11 Office. Further, repeated opportunities were given for appearance of the Opposite Party No.2, but for the reasons best known, she chose not to appear. 4. Mr. D. Mohapatra would argue that firstly, the dispute as per the complaint averments is clearly civil in nature and therefore, the criminal proceeding cannot be allowed to continue. Secondly, the allegations made in the complaint petition are so inherently improbable that no prudent person would ever accept the same. Amplifying his argument, Mr. Mohapatra would submit that the sale transaction took place in the year 2012, consequent upon which title passed to the vendee(complainant) on payment of consideration amount and possession was also delivered. The complainant also mutated the land in her favour and obtained R.O.R. It is therefore, entirely unbelievable that she would not have visited the land purchased by her for as long as six years after such purchase despite residing in the same locality. CRLMC No.946 of 2023 Page 5 of 11 5. Per contra, Mr. S.N.Das, learned Addl. Standing Counsel, would argue that only because a case involves both civil and criminal disputes, the proceedings cannot be quashed. Referring to the complaint petition, Mr. Das would argue that even otherwise there are specific allegations that the Petitioner abused and assaulted the complainant and also attempted to outrage her modesty, which are purely criminal acts. 6. I have perused the complaint petition carefully and the statements of the complainant and other witnesses recorded by the I.O. under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. It is undisputed that the sale transaction took place way back on 13th June, 2012. A copy of the sale deed has been enclosed to the petition as Annexure-1. The recitals of the sale deed clearly reveal that the venders conveyed title to the vendee on that date and acknowledged her title thereupon by delivering possession. The schedule of the sale deed mentions the particulars of the plot sold including its boundaries. A CRLMC No.946 of 2023 Page 6 of 11 sketch map is also appended to the sale deed. It is clearly mentioned in the sale deed that there is a road on the northern side of the plot, which is said to be a private road and the same is also shown in the sketch map. 7. Be that as it may, this Court finds sufficient force in the submission of Mr. Mohapatra that having purchased the land after due verification, the complainant would not have noticed the absence of a road on the northern side as mentioned in the sale deed for as long as six years. If this is accepted, it would suggest an absurd proposition that being interested to purchase a land to construct a house thereon to facilitate higher study of her children, the complainant would not step on the land for as long as six years. Even otherwise, the Petitioner is not the vender but had supposedly facilitated the sale. There is nothing in the sale deed to show that he had either identified the land to the complainant or stated about the presence of road on the northern side of the land CRLMC No.946 of 2023 Page 7 of 11 prior to the sale transaction. This is all the more significant in view of the fact that the complainant is also a resident of the same locality i.e. Samaraipur in the district of Bhadrak. Thus, the basic allegation of the Petitioner falsely inducing the complainant to buy the land on the assurance that a private road exists on the northern side appears to be inherently improbable. In any case, the grievance of the complainant, if any, can be against the vendor/vendors but not the Petitioner, who may have played the role of a facilitator in the transaction. It would be apposite at this stage to refer to the opt quoted decision of the Apex Court in the case of State of Haryana and others vs. Ch. Bhajan Lal and others; 1993 Supp (1) SCC 335, wherein it was held that a criminal proceeding can be quashed, inter alia, on the following ground; “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.” CRLMC No.946 of 2023 Page 8 of 11 8. As to the contentions raised by learned State counsel that the complaint contains allegations of criminal acts such as abuse, assault, outraging of modesty, theft etc., this Court is of the considered view that the basic allegation is itself unbelievable and such being the case there would be no occasion for the Petitioner to do such acts as alleged. Even assuming for the sake of argument that there was some sort of interaction between the Petitioner and the complainant 7 years after the sale transaction, it would not stand to reason as to why he, being the facilitator only, would take upon himself the responsibility of arranging a road as mentioned in the deed instead of relegating the complainant to the vendors. The case diary contains a copy of a diary allegedly belonging to the complainant which shows payment of some money on some occasions to one Bidya Babu and Panda Babu. The Petitioner-Sudhir Kumar Panda also allegedly signed on such diary. This Court however, observes that even accepting the said document as genuine, in the CRLMC No.946 of 2023 Page 9 of 11 absence of any other particulars showing the reason for payment of the amounts to the Petitioner and the other person, the same cannot be treated as a conclusive proof of payment of money to the Petitioner for facilitating the sale transaction. The only thing that shows the involvement of the Petitioner in the sale transaction appears to be an agreement entered into by the Petitioner and Bidyadhar Sahu with the complainant on 23rd July, 2011 to the effect that on payment of Rs.10,000/- by the complainant they would arrange a plot of land for her to buy. Recitals of the agreement only contains reference to the plot numbers, which were ultimately sold to the complainant but nothing has been mentioned as regards the availability of road or otherwise. Thus, there is no way by which the prosecution case can be accepted as against the Petitioner. 9.
Decision
For the foregoing reasons therefore, this Court is of the considered view that the allegations made in the complaint are so inherently improbable that no CRLMC No.946 of 2023 Page 10 of 11 prudent person acting with a rational mind would accept the same as true. Even otherwise, the grievance of the complainant is such as can be addressed by a Civil Court and that too, against the vendor. As such, continuance of the criminal proceedings against the Petitioner would definitely amount to an abuse of the process of the Court and therefore, warrants interference by this Court in exercise of its inherent power. 10. In the result, the CRLMC succeeds and is therefore, allowed. The proceedings in G.R. Case No.273/2020 of the Court of learned S.D.J.M., Bhadrak as against the present Petitioner are hereby quashed. …………….…….……….. (Sashikanta Mishra) Ashok Kumar Behera Judge Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: ASHOK KUMAR BEHERA Designation: A.R.-CUM-SR.SECRETARY Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 31-Aug-2023 11:09:24 CRLMC No.946 of 2023 Page 11 of 11