The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK CRLMC No.1318 of 2022 Jambeswar Sathua Mahapatra …. Petitioner Mr. Pradip Kumar Ray, Advocate -Versus- Smt. Pramila Sathua Mahapatra Opposite Party Mr. Ananga Kumar Otta, Advocate …. CORAM: JUSTICE R.K. PATTANAIK DATE OF JUDGMENT:14.03.2023 1. The petitioner has approached this Court invoking its inherent jurisdiction challenging the impugned order dated 27th April, 2022 passed in ICC Case No.2 of 2022 by the leaned J.M.F.C., Bhuban, Dhenkanal for having taken cognizance of the offences punishable under Sections 294, 323, 354 & 506 read with 34 IPC on the grounds inter alia that with false allegations a report was
Legal Reasoning
lodged as a counterblast to the FIR lodged by him and hence, the same is liable to be quashed in the interest of justice. 2. The petitioner is the elder cousin brother of the complainant’s husband and hence related to each other. As per the petitioner, an incident dated 19th December, 2021 took place during which he was abused, assaulted and threatened with dire consequences for which a report was lodged leading to registration of Bhuban PS Case No. 525 date 20th December, 2021 later to which the complainant was chargesheeted with others and as a counterblast, the complaint in ICC No.2 of 2021 was filed only to harass him. The learned J.M.F.C., Bhuban, according to the petitioner, recorded the initial statement of the complainant-opposite party Page 1 of 5
Legal Reasoning
Jambeswar Sathua Mahapatra Vrs. Smt. Pramila Sathua Mahapatra and conducted an enquiry and finally passed the impugned order, which is however not tenable in law being a malicious prosecution. 3. Heard Mr. Ray, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Otta, learned counsel for the opposite party. 4. It is contended that since the opposite party claimed that she had lodged a report with the local police but alleged of having no action taken, the learned J.M.F.C., Bhuban should have called for a report in terms of Section 210 Cr.P.C. but instead proceeded to take cognizance of the alleged offences. That apart, it is submitted that in course of enquiry under Section 202 Cr.P.C., the husband of the opposite party was examined and none else and therefore, the learned court below ought to have enquired into the incident in detail before proceeding against the petitioner. Besides the above, the leaned court below lost sight of the fact that the alleged incident was reported almost after 21 days. 5. Mr. Ray, learned counsel for the petitioner while advancing argument relied on a decision of the Apex Court in Pepsi Foods Ltd. and Others Vrs. Special Judicial Magistrate reported in AIR 1990 SC 128 which is with regard to role and responsibility of a Magistrate while dealing with criminal cases and summoning the accused which requires careful scrutiny of evidence and also to elicit the truthfulness of the allegation. The decision in R.Balakrishna Pillia Vrs. State of Kerala reported in (2003) 9 SCC 700 is also referred to which followed the law laid down in Pepsi Foods Ltd. (supra). Finally, the authority of the Apex Court in the case of State of Haryana and Others Vrs. Ch. Bhajan Lal reported in AIR 1992 SC 604 is placed reliance on with the contention that the criminal proceeding should be terminated due to the delay and for filling a false case against the petitioner and his other CRLMC No.1318 of 2022 Page 2 of 5 Jambeswar Sathua Mahapatra Vrs. Smt. Pramila Sathua Mahapatra family members. Mr. Otta, learned counsel for the opposite party on the other hand submitted that the learned court below followed due procedure of law and finally, after recording the initial statement of complainant and holding an enquiry, took cognizance of the alleged offences and therefore, it calls for no interference notwithstanding the delay in filing the complaint. 6. The petitioner lodged an FIR for the incident dated 19th December, 2021, a copy of which is at Annexure-1. For the selfsame incident, the complaint is filed by the opposite party which is revealed from a copy of the same at Annexure-4. As far as a complaint is concerned, the opposite party claimed to have approached the local police. According to the petitioner, when the opposite party alleged that the police did not take any action on her report, it was obliged for the court below to call for a report under Section 210 Cr.P.C. In the complaint, under the column whether any information has been given at the P.S. and if so, any action taken thereon, the reply is ‘No’ but during examination of Section 202 Cr.P.C., the opposite party disclosed that a report has been lodged but there was no action, hence, the complaint and if such a disclosure was made, it is further submitted that the learned court below could have enquired into as to if any case has been registered or not. There is no denial to the fact that the complaint was filed after 21 days from the date of the alleged occurrence. The only reason which is shown by the opposite party that she had lodged a report and as there was no action taken, the complaint had to be filed. Such a delay of 21 days for having not approached the court though with an excuse that initially a report was lodged with the local police is quite unusual and definitely needed an explanation. In other words, the opposite party owed a reasonable explanation for the delay in knocking the doors of the court with certain amount of delay CRLMC No.1318 of 2022 Page 3 of 5 Jambeswar Sathua Mahapatra Vrs. Smt. Pramila Sathua Mahapatra when for the self-same incident, the petitioner promptly lodged an FIR which finally led to the submission of chargesheet. 7. The duty of a court is always to be vigilant while entertaining a complaint. It cannot be a mute spectator. A court has to be participative in a judicial proceeding in order to ascertain the truth of the matter and for that, if required a detailed enquiry is to be held. Time and again, it has been held and reiterated that a criminal law cannot be set into motion as a matter of course. The responsibility of the court is not over by simply receiving the evidence but also to carefully scrutinize the same so as to form an opinion as to if any offence is prima facie committed and the above legal position is expounded in Pepsi Foods Ltd. (supra). Of course, at the stage of taking cognizance, the court is not to hold a roving enquiry but the fact of the matter is, in the present case, there has been an unexplainable delay so to say from the side of the opposite party to approach the court for the incident which was immediately reported by the petitioner at the local P.S. Under the circumstances, when a counter case is filed with delay, the court has to be more cautious and circumspect, the purpose being to ascertain the real truth. 8. In so far as Ch. Bhajan Lal (supra) is concerned, certain cases have been categorized which are though not exhaustive but to be borne in mind while exercising inherent jurisdiction. In the instant case, allegations in the complaint at its face value cannot said to be absurd as has been claimed by Mr. Ray. The further argument of the petitioner is that the criminal proceeding at the behest of the opposite party is manifestly attended with malafide with an ulterior motive for wreacking vengeance on the petitioner. Quite curiously, the opposite maintained a stony silence till the time she moved the learned court below and that too when, the complaint was filed later to the submission of chargesheet against CRLMC No.1318 of 2022 Page 4 of 5 Jambeswar Sathua Mahapatra Vrs. Smt. Pramila Sathua Mahapatra them in connection with Bhuban PS Case No. 525 of 2021. A copy of the chargesheet is at Annexure-2 and the same is dated 30th December, 2021 which is prior to the filling of the complaint on 10th January, 2022 and under such circumstances, it is obvious and quite but natural to doubt the veracity in the claim of opposite party which makes her conduct suspectful. When no report was shown or proved to have been lodged and furthermore opposite party having approached the court below after 21 days and most interestingly later to the filling of chargesheet, her conduct is conspicuously found to be suspectful and it also smacks malafide and in such view of the matter, the Court is of the view that such proceeding since appear to have been initiated maliciously as a counterblast to Bhuban PS Case No. 525 of 2021, it should be quashed in exercise of its extra-ordinary jurisdiction so as to do complete justice keeping in view the principles laid down by the Apex Court in Ch. Bhajan Lal (supra). 9. Accordingly, it is ordered. 10. In the result, CRLMC stands allowed. Consequently, the impugned order of cognizance dated 27th April, 2022, Dhenkanal and as a necessary corollary, the criminal proceeding in connection with ICC Case No.2 of 2022 by the leaned J.M.F.C., Bhuban are hereby quashed. (R.K. Pattanaik) Judge U.K. Sahoo CRLMC No.1318 of 2022 Page 5 of 5