The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK CRLMC No.334 of 2021 (In the matter of an application under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973) Saubhagya Kumar Swain ……. Petitioner State of Odisha & another ……. Opposite Parties -Versus- For the Petitioner : Mr. Subir Palit, Senior Advocate For the Opp. Parties : Mr. S.N. Biswal, ASC and Mr. Biswajit Nayak, Advocate CORAM: THE HONOURABLE SHRI JUSTICE SIBO SANKAR MISHRA --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Date of Hearing: 12.03.2025 : Date of Judgment:19.08.2025 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- S.S. Mishra, J. The petitioner has filed the present petition under Section 482 Cr. P.C. seeking quashing of the cognizance order dated 19.12.2019 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Khurda at Bhubaneswar in T.R. No. 262 of 2018 arising out of C.T. No. 52 of 2018 corresponding to Bhubaneswar Mahila P.S. Case No. 02 of 2018 registered under Sections 376(2)(a)(iii), 342, 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Sections 3(1)(w)(ii), 2(v), and 2(vii) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. Page 1 of 13 2. Heard Mr. Subir Palit, learned Senior Advocate appearing for
Legal Reasoning
does not discuss the prima facie ingredients of the offences, nor does it record any judicial satisfaction having been attained to conclude regarding the applicability of the provisions of SC/ST (P.A.) Act. It merely notes that a case is made out against the petitioner and directs issuance of summons. 10. The Petitioner submitted that the allegations are wholly false, fabricated, and motivated by mala fide intentions, particularly to Page 4 of 13 derail and malign the Petitioner’s service career. The alleged incident pertains to a personal grudge arising out of disciplinary proceedings initiated by the Petitioner against the complainant in the course of his official duty. 11. The Petitioner, aggrieved by the arbitrary, mechanical, and unreasoned nature of the cognizance order, has approached this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of the said order and all further proceedings emanating therefrom in G.R. Case No. 15 of 2018. 12. Mr. Palit, learned Senior Advocate for the Petitioner, submitted that the impugned cognizance order is bad in law as it has been passed mechanically without any discussion on the prima facie satisfaction of the learned Court regarding the ingredients of the offences alleged. There is a total non-application of judicial mind, and no reasons have been recorded as to how each offence is made out. 13. It is further submitted that there is an unexplained delay of more than five months in lodging the F.I.R., without any cogent explanation from the complainant, which severely affects the credibility of the allegations. There is no medical, forensic, or independent corroborative evidence to support the claim of sexual Page 5 of 13 assault or unlawful confinement. The complainant has failed to produce any contemporaneous material such as messages, emails, or eyewitness accounts to substantiate the charges. 14. The statements of the complainant recorded under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. are vague, inconsistent, and lacking in material particulars. They fail to disclose the essential ingredients of the alleged offences. Even after the alleged incidents, the complainant continued to correspond professionally with the Petitioner, which further undermines the veracity of her claim. 15. It is submitted that the invocation of the provisions of the S.C. & S.T. (P.A.) Act is clearly an abuse of process, as there is no material on record to suggest that the alleged acts were committed on account of the complainant’s caste. Moreover, as the Petitioner is a public servant, sanction under Section 197 Cr.P.C. is a condition precedent for taking cognizance where the alleged acts are purportedly done in discharge of official duties. The cognizance has been taken without such sanction, which renders the entire proceeding vitiated. 16. The Petitioner relied upon the principles laid down in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, reported in 1992 AIR 604, which Page 6 of 13 enumerates illustrative cases where interference under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is warranted to prevent abuse of process. 17. The learned counsel on behalf of Opposite Party No. 2 has filed a counter affidavit stating that the FIR was lodged belatedly due to fear, trauma, and social stigma, and that delay in sexual assault cases should not be treated as fatal. She has alleged that the petitioner used his official position to exploit her and suppress the matter, and that she faced departmental harassment when she tried to resist his advances. The petitioner being in the dominant position, has been exploiting the complainant, therefore, she could not muster courage against the petitioner to immediately file the case. 18. It has been further submitted by the Opposite Party No.2 that the investigation has been conducted independently, and a Charge Sheet has been submitted based on statements recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C., which support the version of the complainant. It is contended that once a Charge Sheet is filed and the Court finds a prima facie case, it is not appropriate to invoke the jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to abruptly scuttle the trial at the threshold. 19. This Court has carefully considered the rival submissions Page 7 of 13 advanced by the learned counsel for both sides and perused the material placed on record. The core contention raised by the petitioner relates to the lack of application of judicial mind at the stage of cognizance, absence of sufficient material, unexplained delay in lodging of the FIR, and the alleged mala fide origin of the complaint rooted in professional discord. It has been contended that certain documents and evidence, including WhatsApp messages and electronic communications that would have a material bearing on the innocence of the Petitioner, were not considered or were not part of the record placed before the learned Sessions Court at the time of taking cognizance. It has also been pointed out that the complainant’s version is inconsistent and not corroborated by independent or medical evidence, and that her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. lacks the credibility required to sustain a prima facie case. 20. The allegation relates to commission of offences punishable under Sections 376(2)(a)(iii), 342, and 506 of the Indian Penal Code along with Sections 3(1)(w)(ii), 2(v), and 2(vii) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. It is contended that the entire case arises out of an employment-related dispute between the complainant and the petitioner, and the allegations have been levelled as a counterblast to departmental proceedings initiated against the Page 8 of 13 complainant by the petitioner. 21. It is submitted that not all relevant documents were presented before the Court at the stage of cognizance and hence, a fair conclusion could not have been drawn by the learned trial Court. However, it is equally well settled that at the stage of cognizance, the trial Court is not required to conduct a roving inquiry or appreciate the evidence in depth. The trial Court is merely to examine whether a prima facie case is made out from the police report and the accompanying material as contemplated under Section 190 read with Section 173 of the Cr.P.C.. 22. This Court is of the considered view that the power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is to be exercised sparingly and in rare cases where continuation of criminal proceedings would amount to an abuse of process of the Court. It is not within the province of this Court to sift and weigh the evidence in detail at this stage. The materials forming part of the case record, including the 164 Cr.P.C. statement of the complainant and the WhatsApp exchanges, though partially annexed, are not sufficient for this Court to conclusively hold that no offence is made out. Moreover, all documents that form part of the charge-sheet are not presented before this Court in full, the Page 9 of 13 parties have selectively filed the documents and hence any conclusion at this stage would be premature and speculative. 23. The Court is also mindful of the fact that interfering at the stage of cognizance, especially in a serious offence involving allegations under the SC/ST (P.A.) Act and Section 376 IPC, may frustrate the very foundation of due process of law and could potentially pre-empt the evidentiary evaluation by the trial Court. The presence of WhatsApp chats and other communications may, at best, form part of the petitioner's defence and ought to be considered during trial or may be at the stage of framing of charges, rather than being examined prematurely in a quashing petition at cognizance stage. 24. This Court is mindful of the settled position of law that at the stage of taking cognizance, the Magistrate or the Court is not required to weigh the evidence meticulously or conduct a mini-trial. The jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is to be exercised sparingly and with great caution, and only where the allegations are so inherently improbable that no prudent person can reach a conclusion to proceed with the criminal trial. The principle laid down in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal (supra) and consistently reiterated thereafter is that the power to quash proceedings must be used to prevent abuse of process Page 10 of 13 or to secure the ends of justice, but not as a substitute for the trial process itself. 25. It is also well established that this Court ought not to interfere with the cognizance order unless it can be shown that the order suffers from legal infirmity or patent illegality. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sonu Gupta v. Deepak Gupta reported in 2015 (3) SCC 424, has clarified that at the stage of cognizance or framing of charge, the Court is merely to examine whether a prima facie case is made out, and detailed appreciation of evidence is beyond its remit at that stage. This Court does not sit in appeal over the evidence but is to examine whether the allegations are lack of substance that no offence is made out at all. The Hon’ble Supreme Court held thus:- “Considering the criminal the stage at which complaint is pending and the nature of proposed order, this Court would not like to express any definite opinion on the merits of the allegations made in the complaint petition or upon the defence taken by the accused persons before the courts below or in this Court lest it prejudices one or the other party in future. Having considered the details of allegations made in the complaint petition, the complainant on solemn affirmation as well as materials on which the appellant placed reliance which were called for by the learned Magistrate, the learned Magistrate, in our considered opinion, committed no error in summoning the accused persons. At the stage of cognizance and summoning the Magistrate is required to apply his judicial mind only with a view to take cognizance of the offence, or, in other words, to statement of the Page 11 of 13 find out whether prima facie case has been made out for summoning the accused persons. At this stage, the learned Magistrate is not required to consider the defence version or materials or arguments nor he is required to evaluate the merits of the materials or evidence of the complainant, because the Magistrate must not undertake the exercise to find out at this stage whether the materials will lead to conviction or not. It is also well settled that cognizance is taken of the offence and not the offender. Hence at the stage of framing of charge an individual accused may seek discharge if he or she can show that the materials are absolutely insufficient for framing of charge against that particular accused. But such exercise is required only at a later stage, as indicated above and not at the stage of taking cognizance and summoning the accused on the basis of prima facie case. Even at the stage of framing of charge, the sufficiency of materials for the purpose of conviction is not the requirement and a prayer for discharge can be allowed only if the court finds that the materials are wholly insufficient for the purpose of trial. It is also a settled proposition of law that even when there are materials raising strong suspicion against an accused, the court will be justified in rejecting a prayer for discharge and in granting an opportunity to the prosecution to bring on record the entire evidence in accordance with law so that case of both the sides may be considered appropriately on conclusion of trial.” 26. Considering the totality of circumstances, this Court is not inclined to exercise its inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the cognizance order. However, in the interest of justice, liberty is granted to the petitioner to approach the appropriate Court at the stage of framing of charge or thereafter in accordance with law. The trial Court shall be at liberty to consider all documents placed before Page 12 of 13 it to decide any more of the petitioner. 27. Accordingly, while declining to quash the cognizance order, this Court grants liberty to the petitioner to take recourse to any other remedy available under law, including filing an application before the trial Court seeking discharge, if so advised. The trial Court is directed to proceed in accordance with law and decide the application by taking into consideration the documents form part of the record and by not getting influenced by the observation made in this order.
Arguments
the Petitioner, Mr. S.N. Biswal, learned Additional Standing Counsel and Mr. Biswajit Nayak, learned counsel appearing for the opposite parties/victim. 3. The Petitioner is a Police Officer serving in a responsible capacity under the Government of Odisha at the relevant time of the alleged commission of the offence. The Opposite Party No. 2 (the complainant) is a female employee of the same department and was posted under the direct administrative control of the Petitioner. The two were professionally acquainted and had regular official interactions. 4. On 3rd January, 2018, the Opposite Party No. 2 lodged a First Information Report at Bhubaneswar Mahila Police Station, registered as Mahila P.S. Case No. 02 of 2018, alleging that the Petitioner had committed rape on her at his government quarters, wrongfully confined her, and later threatened her with dire consequences if she discloses the incident. She further alleged that the Petitioner humiliated her on the grounds of her caste, thus attracting the offences under the provisions of SC/ST (P.A.) Act, 1989. On the basis of the said complaint, Bhubaneswar Mahila P.S. Case No. 02 of 2018 Page 2 of 13 was registered under Sections 376(2)(a)(iii), 342, and 506 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3(1)(w)(ii), 2(v), and 2(vii) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. 5. Significantly, the F.I.R. was filed after a prolonged and unexplained delay of over five months from the alleged incident. During this entire period, there was no indication from the Opposite Party No. 2 of any grievance or complaint, formal or informal, against the Petitioner. In fact, she continued to work under the supervision of petitioner, attended departmental meetings, and responded to official correspondence without protest or discomfort. 6. The case of the petitioner is that the belated complaint was filed only after he initiated disciplinary proceedings against the Opposite Party No. 2 for certain irregularities and dereliction of duty, which had been officially recorded and communicated. The complaint, therefore, appears to have been filed as a counterblast with an ulterior motive to thwart the disciplinary process and to discredit the Petitioner in the eyes of the department and society. 7. Pursuant to the F.I.R., the police conducted an investigation and submitted a final Charge Sheet No. 85 dated 12.12.2019 before the Learned Sessions Judge, Khurda at Bhubaneswar. The Charge Page 3 of 13 Sheet arrayed the Petitioner as the sole accused and included offences under Sections 376(2)(a)(iii), 342, and 506 of the IPC, and Sections 3(1)(w)(ii), 2(v), and 2(vii) of the SC/ST (P.A.) Act, 1989. 8. The Charge Sheet is entirely based on the oral statement and allegation of the complainant and lacks any supporting medical evidence, forensic material, or independent witness testimony. Notably, the medical examination of the complainant was conducted belatedly and failed to yield any findings indicative of sexual assault or physical violence. No injury marks, signs of struggle, or other corroborative findings were recorded. Moreover, CCTV footage from the residential complex was never seized or examined. 9. The learned Sessions Judge, Khurda proceeded to take cognizance of the offences vide order dated 19.12.2019. The order
Decision
28. Accordingly, the CRLMC is disposed of. Judge (S.S. Mishra) The High Court of Orissa, Cuttack. Dated the 19th day of August, 2025/Subhashis Mohanty Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: SUBHASIS MOHANTY Designation: Personal Assistant Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack. Date: 20-Aug-2025 18:44:04 Page 13 of 13