High Court of Orissa
Case Details
IN THE HIG E HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTT UTTACK CRLMC No. 1327 of 2016 Gajendra Moh another Moharana & …. Petitioners Mr. R. K. Mallick, allick, Advocate -versus- State of Orissa an and another …. Opp. Parties Op Mr. S. J. Moh Mr. R.K. Nayak, Advocate for . Mohanty, ASC ate for O.P. No.2 CORAM: THE HON’BLE BLE MR. JUSTICE CHITTARANJAN D JAN DASH Date of Judgment: 18.07.2025 Chittaranjan Dash, ash, J. 1. By means means of this application, the Petitioners itioners seek the indulgence of this f this Court to quash the cognizance of offe of offences taken by the court i.e. rt i.e. S.D.J.M (S) at Cuttack in conne connection with Mangalabagh P.S.
Legal Reasoning
P.S. Case No.11 of 2015 arising out of IC t of ICC No.1467 of 2014 correspon responding to G.R. Case No.46 of 2015, w 015, wherein the urt learned court took cognizance of offenses unde to under Sections 341/323/354/294/5 /294/506/34 of IPC implicating the Petitione titioners. 2. The backg background facts of the case are that
Legal Reasoning
that one Smt. Manjulata Mohara oharana of Mangalabagh, Biswakarmasahi, sahi, Buxibazar lodged a compla omplaint before the learned S.D.J.M.(S J.M.(S), Cuttack registered vide IC ide ICC No.1467 of 2014 alleging the Pe the Petitioners to have scolded her in her in filthy language (Specifying the langu language uttered CRLMC No. 1327 of of 2016 Page 1 of 6 by the Petitioners tioners) and on the protest of the compl mplainant, the Petitioners rushed ushed to her and gave her push as a result sh she fell down on the ground an nd and started crying loudly. In the mea e meantime, the Petitioner No.2 c o.2 came forward and threatened her to er to smash her house by throwing rowing bomb. According to the complaint, laint, at the time when the incident ident took place, her husband was away from ay from the house and the mother-in in-law who was present and witnessed ed the incident was sick and bed r bed ridden for which she could not come to ome to the rescue of the Complainan lainant. On the basis of the complaint, the le , the learned court directed the Mang Mangalabagh Police under Section 156(3) 156(3) Cr.P.C to enquire and regist register the case against the Petitioners. A ers. Accordingly, the Mangalabagh abagh Police registered the P.S. Case as s referred to above in connectio nnection with Mangalabagh P.S. Case No.1 e No.11 of 2015, upon which the G. the G.R. Case No.46 of 2015 was registered. stered. 3. Learned c ned counsel for the Petitioners while as ile assailing the impugned order o rder of the learned court of S.D.J.M, Sadar Sadar, Cuttack , inter alia, submit ubmitted that there was a compromise b ise between the parties subsequent equent to the lodging of the report wherein herein the matter was amicably sett ly settled and the Complainant would wi uld withdraw the complaint filed be iled before the learned S.D.J.M. Sadar, Cutt r, Cuttack and in such view of the of the matter the cognisance may be quas e quashed as no fruitful purpose w ose would be served by continuing the proc e proceeding. He also refers to the the photo copy of the purported comprom promise bearing the signature of b e of both the Complainant and Opposite P site Parties. The learned counsel f nsel for the Petitioners further submitte bmitted that the narration made in ade in the complaint on its face does not m not make out the offenses of which which the cognizance have been taken an ken and the said cognizance is also also otherwise liable to be quashed. CRLMC No. 1327 of of 2016 Page 2 of 6 4. The learne learned counsel for the Opposite Parties ap ties appearing on behalf of the Com e Complainant, on the other hand, vehement emently objected the contentions o ions of the learned counsel for the Petiti Petitioners with regard to any com y compromise to have taken place between tween the parties. He completely di ly disowned the alleged photo copy of the c f the compromise executed between tween the parties alleging the same to e to have been obtained at the ins the instance of the police under duress supp suppressing the fact and insisted sisted that the narration made in the com e complaint well proves a prima f ma facie case to be tried in the proceeding eding against the Petitioners and th and the cognizance taken by the learned c rned court, being tified requires no interference. legal and justified 5. Upon a me n a meticulous consideration of the compla omplaint and the submissions advan advanced, this Court finds that the allegati llegations, on the face of it, disclose sclose sufficient material to implicate the Pe the Petitioners in the offences allege alleged. The specific assertion that the Petiti e Petitioners, who are male persons, rsons, used criminal force against the Com e Complainant, a female, resulting ing in her fall and distress, prima facie facie attracts the ingredients of the o of the offence under Section 354 IPC. The co The contention of the Petitioners th ers that such act was not intended to o to outrage the modesty of the Co the Complainant but was a consequence of nce of anger, is a matter of defence, fence, which cannot be adjudicated at this p t this preliminary stage. The law is aw is well settled that intention or knowled nowledge in such cases is a matter matter to be tested during trial upon appr appreciation of evidence. Moreov oreover, the threat of bomb attack and use d use of abusive language as allege alleged, further strengthens the substratum ratum of the FIR and cannot be bru be brushed aside. Taken cumulatively, the , the contents of the complaint, if a nt, if accepted in entirety, do make out a p out a prima facie case warranting tr ting trial. The veracity or otherwise of the of the allegations CRLMC No. 1327 of of 2016 Page 3 of 6 cannot be gone i one into at the stage of considering the g the prayer for quashing the cogni cognizance. 6. 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 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:- information ken at their not prima ase against ation report the FIR do tifying an n 156(1) of trate within ade in the in support ion of any constitute a cognizable lice officer lated under 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 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 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. r complaint the basis of ach a just proceeding afted in any cerned Act uted) to the ings and/or ode or the ess for the CRLMC No. 1327 of of 2016 Page 4 of 6 (7) Where with mala maliciously wreaking v spite him d here a criminal proceeding is manifestly atte mala fide and/or where the proceedin iously instituted with an ulterior motive king vengeance on the accused and with a vie him due to private and personal grudge.” tly attended ceeding is motive for h a view to 7. In the pres e present case, none of the exceptional cir al circumstances laid down in Bha Bhajan Lal (Supra) are attracted. The all he allegations in the complaint, wh int, when taken at their face value, do p , do prima facie constitute cognizab gnizable offences and disclose the commiss mmission of acts which warrant in ant investigation and trial. The complaint plaint is neither absurd nor inheren inherently improbable, nor does it appear to ear to have been instituted maliciou aliciously or with any ulterior motive on the on the part of the Complainant. The t. The dispute does not fall within the catego category of cases where continuatio nuation of proceedings would amount to ab t to abuse of the process of law. Ra aw. Rather, it involves serious accusations af ions affecting the safety of a woma woman within her own household. Such Such allegations, supported by a se y a sequence of facts, cannot be negated gated summarily without a full-fled fledged trial. The power under Section 4 tion 482 Cr.P.C., being extraordinar dinary in nature, is to be exercised sparingly aringly and not to stifle a legitimate imate prosecution at the threshold unless th less the case falls squarely within the hin the exceptions laid down by the Apex Co pex Court. 8. In view o iew of the foregoing discussion and upon upon a careful reading of the com he complaint as well as the materials on r ls on record, this Court finds no jus no justifiable ground to invoke its inherent erent jurisdiction under Section 482 order. n 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the cognizance order. 9. The plea o plea of compromise, being disputed, and t and the defence raised by the Petiti Petitioners regarding absence of necessary essary ingredients of the offences, is ces, is all matters to be examined during th ing the course of CRLMC No. 1327 of of 2016 Page 5 of 6 trial upon apprecia preciation of evidence. This Court finds no i ds no illegality or infirmity in the cog the cognizance taken by the learned Magistra agistrate. 10. According ordingly, the prayer to quash the impugned o gned order taking cognizance stands stands rejected. In corollary, the CRLMC is d C is dismissed. Bijay (Chittaranjan Da n Dash) Judge Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BIJAY KETAN SAHOO Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA Date: 23-Jul-2025 10:14:06 CRLMC No. 1327 of of 2016 Page 6 of 6