High Court of Orissa
Case Details
IN THE HIG E HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTT CUTTACK CRLMC No.3034 of 2016 Chakradhar Das Dash …. Petitioner Mr. Ashok Mohanty, Sr. ty, Sr. Advocate -versus- State of Orissa an and another …. Opp. Parties Op Mr. Raj Bhusan Dash, A ash, Addl. P. P. CORAM: THE HON’BLE BLE MR. JUSTICE CHITTARANJAN D JAN DASH Date of Judgment: 09.07.2025 Chittaranjan Dash, ash, J. 1. By mean means of this application, the Petitio Petitioner seeks indulgence of th of this Court praying to quash the o the order dated 15.02.2016 where wherein the learned court took cognizan gnizance of the offences under Sec er Sections 387/447/506/120-B read with Se ith Section 34 of the IPC implicati plicating the Petitioner in connection with n with GR Case No.815 of 2015 pa 015 passed by the learned JMFC, Rural Cut al Cuttack, under Annexure-4. 2. The backg
Facts
background facts of the case are that on at one Soumitra Kumar Lenka of v a of village Baghamara lodged a written re tten report before the IIC, Niali PS iali PS on 01.06.2015 alleging that whi t while he was executing the cana e canal work at Kantapada Sasan, Niali on b li on behalf of his elder brother, Sam r, Sambit Lenka by virtue of power of a r of attorney of Contractor, namely namely, Bhagaban Behera, one Chaga @ B a @ Bibekananda Sahoo, Chagala M gala Mallik, Satura Mallik and Alekha o kha of Polasara Kharighara allege alleged to have extended threat over pho er phone to him repeatedly. While While the matter stood thus on 31.05.2015 5.2015 at around CRLMC No. 3034 of 34 of 2016 Page 1 of 7 11:30 PM, the PC he PC 71 machine was damaged by pouring ouring petrol and throwing bomb. T mb. The Petitioner, who was then engaged a aged as Assistant Engineer of Niali S Niali Sub-Division allegedly to have conspir onspired with the said mischief mon f mongers in carrying out the threat and da nd damaging the property of the co the complainant in prosecution of the cons e conspiracy held between them. On m. On the basis of the complaint, Police reg ice registered the case and took up ok up investigation. In course of the inves investigation, as prima-facie mater material was found against the Petitioner itioner, the Final Form was submitte bmitted implicating the Petitioner as an accu n accused. 3.
Legal Reasoning
Petitioner does not prima facie appear to be to be responsible for the alleged ac ed act of extortion, which is directed aga d against certain other accused pe ed persons. Similarly, no overt act cons t constituting an attempt to murder urder can be attributed to the Petitioner, n oner, nor is there any material to sug to suggest his involvement in the damage ca age caused to the machinery or othe r other property, as is evident from the narr e narration in the FIR. The only asp ly aspect on which the Petitioner appears to ears to have been implicated is in rel s in relation to the alleged criminal conspirac spiracy. 7. However, ever, the foundation of the said allegation r ation rests upon a statement attribute tributed to the Petitioner who was function unctioning as the site engineer wher r wherein he allegedly suggested to the comp complainant that the matter could h ould have been settled with the mischief mo ief mongers prior to execution of th of the work. While such a suggestion m stion may reflect poorly on the Pet he Petitioner’s professional judgment and t and his duty to provide a secure e cure environment for contractual execution cution, it cannot, by any stretch, be ch, be construed as an act of instigation, agr on, agreement, or active participation ipation amounting to criminal conspiracy un acy under Section 120-B IPC. At bes At best, the statement could be viewed as an d as an imprudent attempt to avoid c void confrontation or potential disruption a ption at the work site. Neither the FI the FIR nor the statements of witnesses reco es recorded under Section 161 CrPC CrPC disclose any direct or indirect r irect role of the Petitioner in the co the commission of the alleged offences. In t es. In the absence of any substantive tantive material indicating his complicity in ity in the acts of extortion, intimida timidation, or mischief, continuation of th of the criminal proceeding agains against the Petitioner would amount to an a o an abuse of the process of law. CRLMC No. 3034 of 34 of 2016 Page 5 of 7 8. Be that as hat as it may, this order shall not preclude the ude the trial court from exercising i ising its power under Section 319 of th of the Code of Criminal Procedu rocedure, 1973, in the event any evidenc vidence surfaces during trial indicat indicating the complicity of the Petitioner in ner in the alleged offence. The right e right of the prosecution to invoke Section ection 319 CrPC cannot be curtailed rtailed merely because the cognizance taken taken against the Petitioner stands q ands quashed at the very threshold. 9. For ready referenc ference, Section 319 CrPC postulates as follo s follows: “319. Pow appearing (1) Where, an offence, not being t which su accused, th the offence (2) Where may be arr the case (3) Any pe arrest or u Court for th offence wh (4) Where sub-section (a) the pr commenced (b) subje may procee person whe upon which persons to proceed against other pe Power ing to be guilty of offence.— here, in the course of any inquiry into, or tri fence, it appears from the evidence that any p eing the accused has committed any offenc h such person could be tried together with sed, the Court may proceed against such perso ffence which he appears to have committed. , or trial of, any person offence for r with the person for e Court, he mstances of aforesaid. h not under ed by such trial of, the here such person is not attending the Cour be arrested or summoned, as the circumstanc case may require, for the purpose afore ny person attending the Court, although not u t or upon a summons, may be detained by t for the purpose of the inquiry into, or trial o ce which he appears to have committed. here the Court proceeds against any person u ection (1), then— the proceedings in respect of such person sha enced afresh, and the witnesses re-heard; subject to the provisions of clause (a), the proceed as if such person had been an acc n when the Court took cognizance of the of ” which the inquiry or trial was commenced.” ), the case an accused the offence erson under on shall be 10. In view view of n, the foregoing discussion, the criminal the proceeding agains against the Petitioner in G.R. Case No. 81 No. 817 of 2015 arising out of Nial f Niali P.S. Case No. 115 of 2015, pending ending before the learned J.M.F.C., .F.C., Rural, Cuttack, and the order dated dated 15.02.2016 CRLMC No. 3034 of 34 of 2016 Page 6 of 7 taking cognizance izance of the offences under Sections 387/44 387/447/506/120- B read with Sect h Section 34 of the IPC so far as the P the Petitioner is concerned, are her re hereby quashed. 11. It is, how , however, clarified that in the event an nt any evidence comes on record record during trial indicating involveme lvement of the Petitioner in the al the alleged offence, it shall be open to the tr o the trial court to proceed against him inst him in exercise of power under Section 3 ction 319 CrPC. 12. The CRLM CRLMC is accordingly allowed. There s here shall be no order as to costs. A.K.Pradhan (Chittaranjan Das Judge n Dash) Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BIJAY KETAN SAHOO Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA Date: 11-Jul-2025 17:31:32 CRLMC No. 3034 of 34 of 2016 Page 7 of 7
Arguments
Mr. Moha Mohanty, learned Senior Advocate ass te assailing the impugned order o rder of cognizance, inter alia, submitted th tted that the very complaint lodged b dged by the complainant implicating the acc the accused in the offence under Se er Sections alleged are beyond imaginati agination for the simple reason that n that the case record reveals that the presen present Petitioner to be the Assistan ssistant Engineer-in-Charge of the concern oncerned project executed by the c the complainant. As the Officer-in-Charge harge, it is quite natural for the Pet he Petitioner to pay visit to the site off and off and on. He is also to take stoc e stock of the progress in work and to nd to direct the complainant to e to execute the work in accordance wi ce with the job description and an and any laxity on the part of the complai mplainant in the execution of the f the project ought to have been guided t ided to be taken properly as ultima ultimately it is the site in charge answera swerable for the proper execution on of the work within the timeline. So ne. Some of the utterances as claim claimed by the complainant allegedly to dly to have been made by the Petiti Petitioner supporting the co-accused person persons is just an imagination and ha and have no relevance to the any threat gav at gave out to the Petitioner. The pet he petitioner is bound as part of his obligati bligation towards discharge of duty t duty to ensure the work to be done in accor accordance with CRLMC No. 3034 of 34 of 2016 Page 2 of 7 work order and m and mere fact that the co-accused persons h sons happened to be from his village village cannot be a ground to raise any appre y apprehension as to his association w oever. ation with them for any purpose whatsoever. 4. Mr. Dash Dash, learned Additional Public Prosecuto secutor, opposed the prayer for qua or quashing of the cognizance order dated 1 ated 15.02.2016, submitting that the hat the materials collected during investigati stigation disclose a prima facie acie case against the Petitioner unde under Sections 387/447/506/120 /120-B read with Section 34 IPC. It is con is contended that the allegation of n of conspiracy involving the Petitioner w oner with known miscreants is supp s supported by the statement of the informant ormant, as well as the voice recording cordings seized and examined during investi investigation. The Petitioner’s advice advice to the informant to “settle the m the matter” with mischief mongers ngers, despite being the supervising office officer, coupled with his alleged n eged nexus with anti-social elements, give , gives rise to a reasonable suspici uspicion of collusion. It is further submitte bmitted that such facts and circums rcumstances cannot be brushed aside at th at the threshold stage, particularly ularly when the role of the Petitioner is yet t is yet to be tested during trial. Ms. M Ms. Mohanty also argues that the question estion of sanction under Section 197 n 197 CrPC is a mixed question of fact and ct and law, to be decided at the app e appropriate stage, and that the bar under S nder Section 197 CrPC does not pre ot preclude the court from taking cognizance nizance where the alleged act does n does not bear any reasonable nexus with the ith the discharge of official duty. Sh uty. She submits that the continuation of pro of proceedings is therefore not an a t an abuse of process, and the CRLMC is l C is liable to be dismissed. 5. In the con he context of exercise of power under S der Section 482 Cr.P.C., the Hon Hon’ble Apex Court in its decision in the in the matter of CRLMC No. 3034 of 34 of 2016 Page 3 of 7 State of Haryana ana and Ors. vs. Ch. Bhajanlal and Ors. Ors. reported in 1992 Supp(1) SCC 1) SCC 335, has laid down the following gui ng guidelines:- ade in the in support ion of any constitute a cognizable lice officer lated under information ken at their not prima ase against ation report the FIR do tifying an n 156(1) of trate within Where the allegations made in the first inform “(1) Where t or the complaint, even if they are taken at report or th value and accepted in their entirety do not p face value facie consti constitute any offence or make out a case ag ccused. the accused here the allegations in the first information r (2) Where other materials, if any, accompanying the FI and other m disclose a cognizable offence, justifying not disclo tigation by police officers under Section 156( investigatio ode except under an order of a Magistrate w the Code e urview of Section 155(2) of the Code. the purview (3) Where FIR or com of the sam offence and (4) Where, cognizable offence, no without an Section 155 (5) Where t are so absu which no conclusion against the (6) Where t of the prov (under whi institution where there concerned grievance o (7) Where with mala maliciously wreaking v spite him d here the uncontroverted allegations made i or complaint and the evidence collected in su e same do not disclose the commission of ce and make out a case against the accused. here, the allegations in the FIR do not constit izable offence but constitute only a non-cogni ce, no investigation is permitted by a police o ut an order of a Magistrate as contemplated u on 155(2) of the Code. here the allegations made in the FIR or comp o absurd and inherently improbable on the ba h no prudent person can ever reach a lusion that there is sufficient ground for procee st the accused. here there is an express legal bar engrafted in e provisions of the Code or the concerned er which a criminal proceeding is instituted) t ution and continuance of the proceedings a e there is a specific provision in the Code o erned Act, providing efficacious redress fo ance of the aggrieved party. here a criminal proceeding is manifestly atte the proceedin mala fide and/or where iously instituted with an ulterior motive king vengeance on the accused and with a vie him due to private and personal grudge.” r complaint the basis of ach a just proceeding afted in any ned Act uted) to the ings and/or ode or the ess for the tly attended is ceeding motive for h a view to CRLMC No. 3034 of 34 of 2016 Page 4 of 7 6. Having co ing considered the rival submissions and p and perused the materials available ailable on record, it is indeed evident that t that the name of the present Petition