Orissa High Court
Case Details
ORISSA HIGH COURT: CUTTACK CRLMC No.733 of 2018 In the matter of application under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973. --------------- Sanjaya @ Sanjaya Keshari ..… Mohapatra Petitioner State of Orissa ….. Opp. Party -Versus- For Petitioner : Mr. N. Panda, Advocate For Opp. Party : Mr. S.S. Pradhan, AGA, P R E S E N T: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G. SATAPATHY Date of hearing: 20.01.2023, Date of judgment:25.01.2023 G.SATAPATHY, J. The Petitioner by challenging the order passed by learned J.M.F.C., Nimapara on 05.02.2018 in G.R. Case No. 694 of 2017 taking cognizance of offence // 2 // U/S. 379 of IPC has filed this CRLMC to quash the entire criminal proceeding against him in this case. 2. Facts in nutshell are on 07.11.2017 at 11 AM, Tahasildar, Nimapara
Facts
lodged an FIR against the Petitioner vide his letter No. 7839 dated 06.11.2017 wherein he has alleged that the Petitioner is illegally cutting paddy crops raised on Govt. land in plot No. 571 of Khata No. 2018 in Mouza Dhamanitira kisam (Types of Land) Panighara measuring an Area of Ac. 0.81 dec. On such report, Nimapara P.S. Case No. 284 of 2017 was registered against the Petitioner for commission of offence U/S. 379 of IPC and the matter was investigated into. On completion of investigation, the I.O. submitted charge-sheet against the Petitioner for offence U/S.379 of IPC under which cognizance was taken with issuance of summons against the Petitioner by the impugned order, which the Petitioner prays to quash and consequently, the criminal proceeding arising thereof in // 3 // this CRLMC, on the ground that the Tahasildar, Nimapara had issued notice to him for the purpose of demarcation of aforesaid plot along with other plots and challenging the same, the Petitioner had approached this Court in W.P.(C) No. 23689 of 2017, wherein this Court vide order passed on 14/11/2017 directed R.I., Nimapara to harvest the crops in presence of the Petitioner and deposit the proceeds in an interest bearing Govt. account after selling the harvested crops, but when the aforesaid order was not complied by the Tahasildar, Nimapara, the Petitioner again approached
Legal Reasoning
this Court in Misc. Case No. 21669 of 2017, wherein this Court by an order passed on 08.12.2017 modified the earlier order passed on 14.11.2017 to the extent that the Petitioner shall harvest the paddy in presence of R.I., Hansapada or any other Officer nominated by the Tahasildar, Nimapara within 10 days thence and the harvested paddy shall be sold and the amount thereof // 4 // shall be deposited in an interest bearing account in any bank and the account shall be pledged to Tahasildar, Nimapara without any right on the part of the Petitioner to withdraw the money without leave of this Court, but the Tahasildar without complying the same has initiated the criminal case against the Petitioner for theft of paddy raised over Govt. land, which in the circumstances is otherwise an abuse of process of Court and, therefore, to secure the ends of justice, the criminal proceeding against the Petitioner together with cognizance order may be required to be quashed. 3. In assailing the impugned order, Mr. N. Panda, learned counsel for the Petitioner by placing the facts of the case submits to quash the criminal proceeding against the Petitioner together with the cognizance order. Learned counsel also highlights by taking this Court through the certified copy of the report of R.I. Hansapada, dated 08.11.2017 that the crop was // 5 // seized and kept in zima of one Pravat Kumar Sahoo and thereby, there is absolutely no question of Petitioner committing theft of the crop standing on plot No. 571 and the FIR has been lodged against the Petitioner with a mala fide intention to harass him and cover up the negligence of Govt. Officials and thereby, the present criminal proceeding against the Petitioner being an abuse of process of Court may kindly be quashed. 3.1. In reply, Mr. S.S. Pradhan, learned A.G.A. without disputing the facts submits that although the document reveals that the crop was seized and kept in zima of Pravat Kumar Sahoo, but the Petitioner appears to having dishonestly appropriated the crops is liable to be prosecuted for offence U/S. 379 of IPC and this CRLMC being unmerited may kindly be dismissed. 4. Reverting back to appreciate the rival submissions upon materials placed on record, there appears no dispute about this Court passing an order on // 6 // 08.12.2017 in Misc. Case No. 21669 of 2017 wherein the important observations relating to the issue in this case are extracted below:- by the nominated The Petitioner shall harvest the paddy in presence of R.I., Hansapada or any other Officer Tahasildar, Nimapara. The harvesting shall be made within 10 days from today. The harvested paddy shall be sold and the amount thereof shall be deposited in an interest bearing deposit in any bank and the account shall be pledged to the Tahasildar, Nimapara without any right on the part of the Petitioner to withdraw the money without leave of this Court. Besides, the FIR was registered against the Petitioner on 07.11.2017 for cutting away paddy crops raised over plot NO. 571 on 06.11.2017, but it appears from the copy of report of R.I., Hansapada dated 08.11.2017 along with Zimanama as produced by the Petitioner, the disputed plots including the plot concerned in the FIR along with paddy crops were demarcated and seized on 08.11.2017 in presence of villagers by the R.I., Hansapada who gave the same in zima of Pravat Kumar // 7 // Sahoo on the same date. In the above peculiar facts and circumstance, when the R.I., Hansapada had demarcated the disputed plots including the plot mentioned in the FIR together with the paddy crops and seized as well as handed over in zima to one Pravat Kumar Sahoo on 08.11.2017, how come the Tahasildar, Nimapara found the Petitioner to have been cutting away the paddy crops over the plot mentioned in the FIR i.e. plot no. 571 on 06.11.2017 which is two days before the R.I., Hansapada finding crops over the said plot. It is, therefore, very clear that the then Tahasildar, Nimpara without verifying the facts of cutting of paddy crops by the Petitioner has instituted the FIR against the Petitioner by writing a letter on 07.11.2017 to the IIC., Nimapara P.S. who clearly fell in error for registering an FIR and submitting charge-sheet against the Petitioner and, therefore, the impugned order taking cognizance of offence U/S. 379 of IPC on the basis of perfunctory // 8 // materials produced by the Investigating Officer who without any proper investigation has submitted charge- sheet against the Petitioner, is nothing, but an abuse of process of Court and allowing continuance of criminal proceeding against the Petitioner on the aforesaid circumstance would be unnecessary and further harassment to the Petitioner. In view of the aforesaid uncontroverted facts and circumstances which do not disclose commission of any offence by the Petitioner for the FIR lodged on 07.11.2017 on the facts of non- existence allegation as on 06.11.2017, the order taking cognizance on such FIR for offence U/S. 379 of IPC together with the consequential criminal proceeding arising thereof against the Petitioner being unsustainable in the eye of law is required to be quashed. 6.
Decision
In the result, the CRLMC is allowed on contest, but in the circumstance, there is no order as to cost. As a logical sequitur, the impugned order together with the // 9 // criminal proceeding against the Petitioner in G.R. Case No. 694 of 2017 of the Court of learned JMFC, Nimapara is hereby quashed. JUDGE …………….………….. G.SATAPATHY, Orissa High Court, Cuttack The 25th January, 2023, Priyajit