Civil Suit No. 825 of 2006 · High High Court
Case Details
AFR IN THE HIGH HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTA TTACK CRLMC No. 2361 of 2016 Ullash Ch. Sama amantray …. Petitioner Mr. N. Lenka, Advocate, ocate, Advocate -versus- State of Odisha a ha and another …. Opposi posite Parties Ms. S. Mohanty, A nty, Addl. P. P. Mr. Samir Kumar Mishra, Sr. ra, Sr. Advocate For O.P. No.2 For O CORAM: THE HON’BLE BLE MR. JUSTICE CHITTARANJAN JAN DASH Date of Judgment: 08.12.2025 Chittaranjan Dash, ash, J. 1. By means eans of this application, the Petitioner seek er seeks to quash the criminal proce proceeding in connection with 1CC No.31 No.315 of 2016 pending before the ore the learned S.D.J.M., Bhubaneswar init ar initiated at the instance of the Opp he Opposite Party No.2. 2. The backg background facts of the case are that the mo he mother of the Opposite Party N rty No.2, namely Pramila Paikray, the si the sister of the present Petitioner tioner filed a Civil Suit No.825 of 2006 in t 06 in the court of learned Civil Jud il Judge, (Sr. Division), Bhubaneswar a war against the Petitioner praying raying for decree of partition of the suit e suit properties allotting 1/4th shar th share in her favour. In the said suit, the mo the mother of the Opposite Party N rty No.2 described the Petitioner as the s the son of the Raghunath Saman Samantray and nor Lokanath Samntaray. F aray. Finally, the aforesaid suit was it was decreed on the basis of the comprom promise filed by CRLMC No.2361 of of 2016 Page 1 of 12
Facts
the Parties, wherei wherein it was admitted that the Petitioner is oner is the son of Lokanath Samntra mntray and not Raghunath Samantray. Havi . Having satisfied with the decree p cree passed by the learned court on the b the basis of the compromise, the m , the mother of the Opposite Party No.2 nam 2 namely Pramila Paikray got the pr the properties fell in her share mutated in ted in her name. Subsequently, she y, she sold away the said properties in fav in favour of one Gangadhar Sahoo Sahoo of Baramunda, Bhubaneswar in the in the district of khurda. It is allege alleged by the Petitioner that while filing t iling the suit, the said Pramila Paika Paikaray intentionally described the Petitio Petitioner as son of Raghunath Sam th Samantray instead of Lokanathi Samant amantray but the Petitioner consiste nsistently asserted him to be the son of sai of said Lokanath Samantray. After er about 3 years of the said final decre l decree, the said Pramila Paikray f kray filed CMA No. 35/11 before the lea the learned Civil Court U/s 151 CPC 51 CPC, inter alia, praying to set aside the c e the compromise decree on the g the ground that the same has been ob en obtained by committing fraud. fraud. The petitioner contested the said pro id proceeding by submitting his obj is objection. Despite the objection, the le the learned Trial Court accepted t pted the case of the Petitioner for co or consideration whereupon the P the Petitioner preferred Criminal Revisio evision Petition before this Honhl Honhle Court in CRP No.3/12. This Cour s Court by order dated 03.02.2012 .2012 stayed the further proceeding in th in the aforesaid CMA No. 35/2011 5/2011. When the matter stood thus, in the in the year 2015, the said Pramila P mila Paikray filed another CMC No.636 of 36 of 2015 under Section 144 (2) Cr (2) Cr.P.C against the Petitioner and some o ome others, inter, alia, seeking for o for order under the said provision of law n f law not to raise any construction o ction over the scheduled-A land of the sa the said Petition. When an interim terim order was passed in the said proce proceeding, the CRLMC No.2361 of of 2016 Page 2 of 12 Petitioner challeng allenged the aforesaid order in CRLREV REV No.457 of 2015 before this C this Court. During pendency of the aforesai foresaid Criminal Revision, the Add e Addl. DCP-cum-Executive Magistrate, Bh ate, Bhubaneswar vide order dated dated 28.07.2015 was pleased to drop drop the said proceeding, inter a inter alia, mentioning therein that the dispu dispute are civil in nature. It is furth is further alleged by the Petitioner that in the t in the meantime, Pramila Paikray fi kray filed so many cases before the learned earned civil court including the said e said CMA No.35 of 2011 but the CMA No A No.35 of 2011 got stayed by thi by this Court. In the meanwhile, on the n the basis of a complaint case fi ase filed by the son of Pramila Paikray aikray, inter alia allegeing that the P t the Petitioner is the son of Late Raghunath hunath Samantray but claimed to be to be the adopted son of Lokanath Samantr amantray and has sold certain prope properties and further that the Petitioner m oner managed to obtain a comprom mpromise decree in the civil suit against ainst his mother namely Pramila Pa ila Paikray. His mother Pramila Paikray, b ray, being an old lady did not know t know the implication of putting signatur gnature on court paper and her sign er signature in the alleged compromise decre e decree and now she has been suf en suffering and claiming himself to be o be the son of Lokonath Samnat amnatray, the Petitioner sold some proper properties in the name of Hrusikeh rusikeh Samantray, S/o. Raghunath Saman Samantray. It is further alleged th ed that the Petitioner sold certain proper properties to one Swarnalata Mohan Mohanty as Ullash Samantray, S/o. Lokanth kanth Samantray and subsequently c ently cancelled the same through a deed of ca d of cancellation. In the above circ e circumstances, the Petitioner has appro approached this Court seeking to c g to challenge the initiation of the criminal minal proceeding instituted at the be the behest of the son of Pramila Paikray and ay and has prayed for quashing of the of the same. CRLMC No.2361 of of 2016 Page 3 of 12 3.
Legal Reasoning
e same, prima facie shows no material that in that incriminates the Petitioner or es r or establishes any criminal conduct on his p n his part. 7. In the mat e matter of Usha Chakraborty & another her vs. State of West Bengal and and another reported in (2023) 15 SCC 5 SCC 135, the Hon’ble Supreme C reme Court held as follows:- “8. In Par Court held: In Paramjeet Batra v. State of Uttarakhand rt held: (SCC p. 676, para 12) akhand, this “12. Wh 482 of t This pow purpose court or a comp 2. While exercising its jurisdiction under S 2 of the Code the High Court has to be cau is power is to be used sparingly and only f rpose of preventing abuse of the process o urt or otherwise to secure ends of justice. W complaint discloses a criminal offence o nder Section be cautious. only for the cess of any ice. Whether ence or not CRLMC No.2361 of of 2016 Page 7 of 12 depends Whether present o complain have a c whether nature is situation adopted should n to preven pends upon the nature of the facts alleged th hether essential ingredients of criminal offen esent or not has to be judged by the High Co mplaint disclosing civil transactions may ve a criminal texture. But the High Court mu hether a dispute which is essentially of a ture is given a cloak of criminal offence. In tuation, if a civil remedy is available and is, i opted as has happened in this case, the High ould not hesitate to quash the criminal proce prevent abuse of process of the court.” eged therein. l offence are igh Court. A s may also urt must see y of a civil ce. In such a nd is, in fact, High Court proceedings ××× , this Court achieve the ings are not ssment. hajan Lal, a the statutory and held as In Kapil Aggarwal v. Sanjay Sharma, this that Section 482 is designed to achiev ose of ensuring that criminal proceedings a itted to generate into weapons of harassment n the decision in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Judge Bench of this Court considered the sta isions as also the earlier decisions and h r: (SCC pp. 378-79, para 102) 02.... (1) Where the allegations made in th formation report or the complaint, even if th ken at their face value and accepted in tirety do not prima facie constitute any offe 10. In Kap held that purpose of permitted 11. In the d two-Judge provisions under: (SC “102.... informat taken at entirety make ou out a case against the accused. in the first n if they are ted in their y offence or information panying the e, justifying der Section order of a on 155(2) of ) Where the allegations in the first inform (2) Whe port and other materials, if any, accompanyi report an R do not disclose a cognizable offence, just FIR do n investigation by police officers under S an inves 6(1) of the Code except under an order 156(1) o agistrate within the purview of Section 155 Magistra e Code. the Code ) Where the uncontroverted allegations ma (3) Whe e FIR or complaint and the evidence collec the FIR pport of the same do not disclose the comm support any offence and make out a case again of any cused. accused. ns made in collected in commission against the CRLMC No.2361 of of 2016 Page 8 of 12 cognizable offence, no the FIR or improbable on can ever cient ground IR do not titute only a tigation is n order of a on 155(2) of ) Where the allegations in the FIR d (4) Wh nstitute a cognizable offence but constitute constitut investigatio non-cog rmitted by a police officer without an orde permitte agistrate as contemplated under Section 155 Magistra e Code. the Code ) Where the allegations made in the F (5) Wh mplaint are so absurd and inherently impro complain the basis of which no prudent person can on the b ach a just conclusion that there is sufficient g reach a j r proceeding against the accused. for proce ) Where there is an express legal bar engraf (6) Whe y of the provisions of the Code or th any of ncerned (under which a criminal proceed concerne stituted) to the institution and continuance instituted oceedings and/or where is a sp proceedi ovision in the Code or the concerned provisio oviding efficacious redress for the grievance providin grieved party. aggrieve manifestly ) Where a criminal proceeding is man (7) Wh e proceeding tended with mala fide and/or where the proce attended r motive for maliciously instituted with an ulterior moti is malici with a view reaking vengeance on the accused and with a wreaking grudge. spite him due to private and personal grudge to spite h engrafted in or the Act roceeding is uance of the a specific cerned Act, vance of the there ××× 20. As no commissio 423, 467, appellants. ingredients would reve did not car alleged off the compla on the resp that the app in fear of putting him induced h As noticed hereinbefore, the respondent a mission of offences under Sections 323, 384 467, 468, 420 and 120-B IPC agains llants. A bare perusal of the said allegation a dients to attract them, as adverted to herein ld reveal that the allegations are vague and ot carry the essential ingredients to constitu ed offences. There is absolutely no allegat omplaint that the appellants herein had cause he respondent so also, they did not reveal the appellants had intentionally put the respo ar of injury either to himself or another ng him under such fear or injury, disho ced him to deliver any property or va dent alleged 3, 384, 406, against the ation and the hereinbefore ue and they onstitute the allegation in caused hurt eveal a case e respondent other or by dishonestly or valuable CRLMC No.2361 of of 2016 Page 9 of 12 eal that the ceedings are ther that the nature. The n a cloak of ircumstance rted to the going by the ourt would prevent the but for the security. T alleged off 467, 468, attract the the nature application make it cl specific al respect of t 21. The fa genesis as nothing bu dispute inv appellants criminal o when the available c decision in have quash abuse of concealmen 22. In the fact that in civil nature jurisdiction is pending, fact that th use the crim against the respondent 2015, he g against his School Ma that he fil investigatio of a case th informed o would only 23. For all that this c spect to the rity. The same is the position with respect ns 406. 423. ed offences punishable under Sections 406 gredients to 468, 420 and 120-B IPC. The ingredie inbefore and ct the alleged offence referred to hereinbefo in the in ned the allegations contained nature of undoubtedly ication filed by the respondent would undou led to make e it clear that the respondent had failed to ts herein in ific allegation against the appellants here ect of the aforesaid offences. The factual position thus would reveal th sis as also the purpose of criminal proceedin ing but the aforesaid incident and further th ute involved is essentially of civil nature llants b and the respondents have given a cl inal offence in the issue. In such circum n the respondent had already resorted t lable civil remedy and it is pending, going sion in Paramjeet Batra, the High Court quashed the criminal proceedings to preve e of the process of the Court but fo ealment. In the aforesaid circumstances, coupled wi that in respect of the issue involved, which nature, the respondent had already approach dictional civil court by instituting a civil suit nding, there can be no doubt with respect that the attempt on the part of the responden he criminal proceedings as weapon of haras nst the appellants. The indisputable facts th ondent has filed the pending title suit in th , he got no case that he obtained an interim nst his removal from the office of Secretary ol Managing Committee as also the truste he filed the stated application for an ord stigation only in April 2017 together with ab case that despite such removal he got a right med of the affairs of the school and also the ld only support the said conclusion. or all these reasons, we are of the considered this case invites invocation of the power led with the which is of proached the il suit and it spect to the ondent is to f harassment acts that the t in the year nterim relief retary of the trusteeship, n order for ith absence a right to get lso the trust, sidered view ower under CRLMC No.2361 of of 2016 Page 10 of 12 Section 482 the directio application thereof. A permitting against the would resu in miscarri ion 482 CrPC to quash the FIR registered ba irection of the Magistrate Court in the afore ication and all further proceeding in purs of. Also, we have no hesitation to hold itting continuance of the criminal procee nst the appellants in the aforesaid circums ld result in abuse of the process of court an iscarriage of justice.” red based on e aforestated n pursuance o hold that proceedings ircumstances urt and also 8. Having co g considered the submissions of the learn e learned counsel for the respective ective parties and upon perusal of the re the records, it is evident that the d the dispute between the parties is primar primarily civil in nature, relating to ing to ownership and partition of the prope properties under the common hotch hotchpotch. The allegations in the complai mplaint arise out of the same civil d civil dispute, and there is no material on reco n record to prima facie suggest tha st that the Petitioner has committed an ed any criminal offence. 9. It is furth s further clear from the documents file ts filed and the compromise decre decree passed in Civil Suit No. 825 of 20 of 2006 that the Petitioner’s parent parentage as the son of Lokanath Samantra mantray has been consistently ackno acknowledged, including in official records cords such as the Record-of-Rights, ights, educational certificates, and other other documents. The initiation of n of the present criminal proceeding app g appears to be motivated solely solely for harassment and to create u ate unnecessary litigation, without ction. ithout any genuine criminal cause of action. 10. In view of iew of the above, and the principle laid do laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme reme Court, this Court is of the view that that the present complaint constitu onstitutes an abuse of the process of law. A aw. Accordingly, CRLMC No.2361 of of 2016 Page 11 of 12 the criminal proce proceeding in connection with 1CC No.31 No.315 of 2016 pending before the ore the learned S.D.J.M., Bhubaneswar stand r stands quashed. (Chittaranjan Das Judge Dash) Bijay Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BIJAY KETAN SAHOO Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA Date: 09-Dec-2025 10:20:07 CRLMC No.2361 of of 2016 Page 12 of 12
Arguments
Mr. Lenka Lenka, learned counsel for the Petitioner, sub er, submitted that the entire set of a t of allegations in the complaint arises out es out of a long- standing property perty dispute between the parties, which is p ich is purely civil in character, and , and that the criminal court ought not t not to entertain matters that essen t essentially pertain to civil rights over over immovable property. He conte e contended that right from the institution ution of the civil suit, Opposite Part te Party No.2, namely Pramila Paikray, the , the elder sister of the Petitioner, w oner, with the sole objective of appropriatin priating the entire properties of Lo Lokanath Samantray, deliberately dis ly disputed the parentage of the f the Petitioner by describing him as t as the son of Raghunath Sama Samantray. Ultimately, however, the matter was the m amicably settled a ttled and a compromise decree was passed passed wherein it stood acknowledg wledged that the Petitioner is the son of son of Lokanath Samantray. Only a Only after alienating the properties that had f t had fallen to her share pursuant to t nt to the compromise decree, Pramila Paikra Paikray instituted proceedings challe challenging the said compromise decree, cree, despite the fact that it had a had already been fully acted upon. Learn Learned counsel further argued tha ed that the complaint case discloses no caus o cause of action whatsoever and th and that the issues raised therein have al ave already been settled between th een the parties. The land in question, accord according to him, does not fall withi l within the common hotchpotch nor was it was it the subject matter of the comp e compromise decree. Therefore, even assum assuming for the sake of argument t ment that the Petitioner has executed certain ertain documents describing himself imself as the son of Lokanath Samantray, n , no criminal liability can be a be attached to him, as no right in the p the property of Opposite Party No rty No.2 or her son stands affected thereb thereby. It is his specific submissio mission of Mr. Lenka that the core of t e of the dispute CRLMC No.2361 of of 2016 Page 4 of 12 revolves around w ound whether the Petitioner is the son of son of Lokanath Samantray or Rag Raghunath Samantray, which is a mat a matter already settled in multiple ultiple unimpeachable records. He drew atten w attention to the Record-of-Rights ights of the year 1962 pertaining to Plot Plot No. 37-E, wherein the Petiti Petitioner has been recorded as the son o son of Lokanath Samantray. Likew Likewise, the matriculation certificate issu te issued by the Board of Seconda condary Education, an unimpeachable docu e document, also reflects the Peti Petitioner’s parentage as the son of n of Lokanath Samantray. The The same description appears consisten nsistently in the Aadhar Card and rd and other official documents issued ssued thereafter. Further, in a gift a gift deed executed in the year 1976, 1976, Raghunath Samantray himself imself described the Petitioner, Ullash Ch. h Ch. Samantray, as his nephew, the ew, thereby acknowledging that the Petition etitioner was not his son. Relying on ying on these materials, Mr. Lenka contende ntended that there is no manner of do r of doubt that the Petitioner is the son of Lat of Late Lokanath Samantray. He t He therefore submitted that the presen present criminal proceeding, initiat initiated at the instance of the Petitioner’s ner’s nephew, is nothing but an a an attempt to usurp property and to s d to subject the Petitioner to unwa unwarranted harassment, and is liable to be to be quashed. 4. Mr. Sami Samir Kumar Mishra, learned Senior enior Advocate appearing for Op or Opposite Party No.2, vehemently con ly contested the submissions adva advanced by Mr. Lenka, learned couns counsel for the Petitioner. He sub e submitted that the property in question, estion, which has been alienated by t ed by the Petitioner by impersonating himsel himself as the son of Lokanath Sama Samantray, squarely attracts the offences all ces alleged in the complaint. Accord ccording to him, the averments in the comp complaint, taken at their face value value, clearly disclose the ingredients of th ts of the offences CRLMC No.2361 of of 2016 Page 5 of 12 alleged and make make out a prima facie case against the Pe the Petitioner. In such circumstance stances, it was contended that the requ request of the Petitioner for quas ashing the complaint is wholly untenab tenable and does not merit considera nsideration. 5. Having he ing heard the learned counsel for the respec respective parties and upon perusal o rusal of the documents, it is established that d that the mother of Opposite Party N Party No.2 had filed Civil Suit No.825 of 20 f 2006, naming the Petitioner as a er as a defendant. In the said suit, the mo he mother of the plaintiff claimed imed a partition of the property under th der the common hotchpotch to the to the extent of one-fourth share, which which ultimately ended in a compro ompromise, and a compromise decree was pa as passed under the joint signatur gnatures of all the parties in the suit, inc it, including the Petitioners Purna Purna Chandra Samantray, Swarnalata nalata Badajena, Jharana Baliarsing iarsingh, Urmila Mohanty, and Pramila Pa ila Paikray. The verification attache attached to the joint petition specifies the de the details of the property involved volved in the common hotchpotch, from from which the mother of the plain e plaintiff claimed her share. Considerin sidering the submission of the learned coun d counsel for the Petitioner that the at the property allegedly sold by the Petiti Petitioner forms part of his share in hare in the common hotchpotch, both parties arties were asked to submit affida affidavits regarding the properties. The . The Petitioner submitted an affid n affidavit providing details of the properti roperties forming part of the comm common hotchpotch and covered by the c the compromise decree. The Oppo Opposite Party, however, filed an affida affidavit without giving specific de ific details of the land in the common hotc n hotchpotch and reiterated their earl eir earlier contentions. CRLMC No.2361 of of 2016 Page 6 of 12 6. The joint p joint petition, upon which the compromise omise decree was based, was accept accepted by the competent court in 2009, g 009, granting the mother of Opposit pposite Party No.2 her one-fourth share in th re in the property of the common h mon hotchpotch. After the decree, the pro the property was mutated in her fav er favor and has since been alienated by he by her. It is also not disputed that that the mother of Opposite Party No.2 f o.2 filed a civil application challen challenging the compromise decree on the on the ground of fraud, which is s h is still pending before the competent etent court. The allegations in that n that civil application form the basis of the of the complaint case filed by the n y the nephew of the Petitioner, registered as red as 1CC Case No.315 of 2016. The Petitio Petitioner’s contention that Raghunath Sam th Samantray, in his deed of gift in gift in 1976, described the Petitioner as his n s his nephew has not been disput disputed by Opposite Party No.2. Fu 2. Further, the acknowledgment b ment by the mother of Opposite Party No rty No.2 that the Petitioner is the so the son of Lokanath Samantray, along with g with documents reflecting the same