The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK CRLMC No.1395 of 2022 Brahmananda Sahoo and Others …. Petitioners Mr. Devashis Panda, Advocate -Versus- State of Odisha and Another Opposite Parties Mr. S.S. Mohapatra, ASC for O.P.No.1 Mr. Pradipta Verma, Advocate for O.P.No.2 …. CORAM: JUSTICE R.K. PATTANAIK DATE OF JUDGMENT:14.03.2023 1. Instant petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is at the behest of the petitioners for quashing of the impugned FIR No.7 of 2021 of Mahila PS. Cuttack corresponding to G.R. Case No.100 of 2021 arising out of 1CC Case No.18 of 2021 pending in the file of learned S.D.J.M. Sadar, Cuttack on the grounds inter alia that the facts alleged in the complaint even if accepted at its face value do not prima facie constitute any offence and also for the fact that the criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with malafide and with an ulterior motive to humiliate the petitioners on account of personal grudge. 2. The complaint (Annexure-3) was filed by opposite party No.2 registered as 1CC Case No.18 of 2021. Thereafter the learned S.D.J.M. Sadar, Cuttack directed registration of a case by passing an order under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. and accordingly, it was numbered as Mahila P.S. Case No.7 of 2021. However, a final report was submitted as per Annexure-4 as none of the alleged CRLMC No.1395 of 2022 Page 1 of 7 offences except the offence punishable under Section 323 IPC was established. On the anvil of the final form, which is to be placed
Legal Reasoning
prima facie case is made out against the petitioners for the alleged offence and hence, the Court should not exercise its inherent jurisdiction to quash the criminal proceeding. Mr. Verma, learned counsel for opposite party No.2 strongly challenged the contention of the petitioners and submitted that the alleged incident has been described in the complaint which was treated as an FIR and when at the end of the investigation, a final form is submitted, there is no justifiable ground for the Court to quash the criminal proceeding even though it was required to be filed including all the offences alleged. 6. The details of the relationship between the parties have been described by the petitioners and also explained the root cause of the dispute. As it is made to understand, opposite party No.2 is the niece of petitioner No.1 and that is how the parties are related to each other. The petitioner No.3 is, however, an outsider, who was then the driver of petitioner No.1. It further appears that the alleged incident arose out of a dispute at the time of installation of an overhead tank which was opposed by petitioner No.1. The opposite party No.2 was in favour of the installation of the tank which was objected to by petitioner No.1 and as it is realized, due to such difference between them, the incident said to have happened. According to the petitioners, the allegations of assault etc. are outrightly false. 7. Mr. Panda, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that considering the intent of opposite party No.2, who in order to settle score with petitioner No.1 filed the complaint (FIR), the criminal proceeding should be quashed. It is contended that petitioner No.1 is a reputed doctor and all the family members are CRLMC No.1395 of 2022 Page 3 of 7 well settled but opposite party No.2 with an oblique motive made out a concocted story and filed the complaint primarily to wreak vengeance and even otherwise the complaint and the final form do not make out a prima facie case for an offence punishable under Section 323 IPC. 8. On the other hand Mr. Mohapatra, learned counsel for the State submits that on a bare reading of the FIR and consideration of the chargesheet, a case under Section 323 IPC is prima facie established as the informant opposite party No.2 was slapped and assaulted/manhandled by the petitioners in the manner described. In such view of the matter, Mr. Mohapatra, learned ASC submits that the relief which has been prayed for by the petitioners should not be allowed. 9. Mr. Verma, learned counsel for opposite party No.2 submits that the informant has been abused and assaulted by all the petitioners on different occasions and therefore, a case was made out and considering the same when their involvement is prima facie established, the criminal action which has been initiated should not be quashed. A details show cause/ objection is filed by opposite party No.2, wherein, it is stated that though for the other offences the petitioners have been let off but a case under Section 323 IPC has been proved and therefore, they have been chargesheeted and under such circumstances, the prayer for quashing of the criminal proceeding should be dismissed. 10. In Ch. Bhajan Lal (supra), the circumstances under which criminal proceedings may be quashed have been discussed elaborately by laying down certain norms and principles to be followed while exercising extra-ordinarily jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. It has been held and observed therein that if no case is prima facie made out even accepting the complaint or CRLMC No.1395 of 2022 Page 4 of 7 FIR at their face value; or no cognizable offence is disclosed considering the complaint or FIR, in such cases, the criminal proceedings may be quashed. Some other categories have also been mentioned in the aforesaid decision where inherent jurisdiction may be exercised to terminate the criminal proceedings including where situations demand. It has also been held in the said decision that in case of a malicious prosecution or a criminal action tainted with malafide or in order to wreack vengeance, it can also be interfered with exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. 11. In the instant case, the parties are related to each other. It is not in dispute that both sides are not in good terms. So to say, the Court finds that the relationship vis-a-vis petitioners and opposite party No.2 is not cordial. The hostility between the parties is loud and clear which is evident from the complaint and also the show- cause/objection of opposite party No.2 and the reply of dated 2nd August, 2022 of petitioner No.1 besides the fact that a litigation in C.S. No.206 of 2022 to be pending before the civil court. It is made to understand from the FIR that the alleged incident is an outcome of a dispute between the parties at a time when opposite party No.2 had engaged some workers to put up and install an overhead tank which was opposed and objected to by petitioner No.1 and in course of the events, as alleged by the former, she was abused and manhandled. Such a version of opposite party No.2 though denied by the petitioners but found favour with during investigation which led to the submission of chargesheet under Section 323 IPC though the other offences could not be proved by evidence. In such a situation, a question may arise as to why one is to doubt and disbelieve the claim of opposite party No.2, who alleged to have been misbehaved and manhandled by the petitioners during and in course of the incidents? Of course, CRLMC No.1395 of 2022 Page 5 of 7 the truthfulness of allegations is a matter normally examined and gone through during trial. However, applying the settled principles of law as delineated in Ch. Bhajan Lal which followed the celebrated judgment of the Apex Court in R.P. Kapur (supra), the Court is of the view that since a civil litigation is pending and furthermore, in view of hostilities between the parties, there was every likelihood of false implication or huge exaggeration of a trivial matter which is apparently evident in the present case considering the fact that opposite party No.2, if any such incident really happened on 12t25th December, 2020, waited till 19th January, 2021 to file the complaint though with an excuse of having approached the local police on 12th January, 2021 which is again over an incident said to have taken place on the said date. It is quite unusual and unexpected for someone to remain silent for more than 20 days and not to report the incident dated 25th December, 2020 or file a complaint despite the fact that an outsider, namely, petitioner No.3, the driver of petitioner No.3 outraged modesty of opposite party No.2 and committed the alleged mischief which is serious in nature. It seems that petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 objected installation of a water tank and in that connection, there appears to have dissension in the family besides the civil ligation for partition and possibly for the said reason, some events followed suit but curiously enough, opposite party No.2 maintained stony silence for nearly twenty odd days to report the incident dated 25th December, 2020 and that too by filling a complaint which rather makes her conduct suspect. Furthermore, the other allegations about the outraging of modesty could not be established despite police investigation. Considering the above facts, the Court is of the conclusion that the criminal proceeding which appears to be the result of a dissension in the family over some events of trivial nature for which the incident dated 25th December, 2020 was not reported immediately and CRLMC No.1395 of 2022 Page 6 of 7 thereafter almost 20 days later, the complaint was filed which also ended in a final report for certain offences and also for being suspectful of such conduct of opposite party No.2, it is a fit case where inherent jurisdiction should be exercised to quash the criminal proceeding keeping in view the legal position expounded in Ch. Bhajan Lal (supra). 12. Accordingly, it is ordered.
Arguments
before the learned court below and with the contention that the allegations to be false, the petitioners have approached this Court for quashing of the criminal proceeding as a whole invoking its inherent jurisdiction. 3. Heard Mr. Panda, learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr. Mohapatra, learned ASC for opposite party No.1 and Mr. Verma, learned counsel for opposite party No.2. 4. Mr. Panda, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that with a malafide intention and in order to wreack vengeance against petitioner Nos.1 and 2, the complaint was filed by opposite party No.2 which led to the submission of chargesheet and that apart, essential ingredients of Section 323 IPC are not satisfied and therefore, the criminal proceeding vis-a-vis Cuttack Mahila P.S. Case No.7 of 2021 corresponding to G.R. Case No.100 of 2021 shall have to be quashed in the interest of justice. While contending so, Mr. Panda, learned counsel for the petitioners relied upon the decisions of the Apex Court in State of Haryana and Others Vrs. Ch. Bhajan Lal and Others AIR 1992 SC 604 and R.P. Kapur Vrs. State of Punjab AIR 1960 SC 866 and submitted that since the criminal proceeding is initiated by opposite party No.2 out of personal grudge and with an ulterior motive for wreacking vengeance and instituted maliciously, it is a fit case for the Court to exercise power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the same. While claiming that the offence under Section 323 IPC is not made out Mr. Panda, learned counsel for the petitioners cited a judgment of this Court in Mamata Tripathy and Another Vrs. State of Orissa and Others 2019 (II) OLR 272. CRLMC No.1395 of 2022 Page 2 of 7 5. On the other hand, Mr. Mohapatra, learned ASC submits that later to the registration of case since investigation was held and thereafter, a final form has been submitted, it is to be said that a
Decision
13. In the result, CRLMC stands allowed. As a necessary corollary, the criminal proceeding corresponding to G.R. Case No.100 of 2021 arising out of 1CC Case No.18 of 2021 pending in the file of learned S.D.J.M. Sadar, Cuttack is hereby quashed for the reasons discussed herein above. (R.K. Pattanaik) Judge TUDU CRLMC No.1395 of 2022 Page 7 of 7