The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK CRLMC NO.2309 OF 2023 (Application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in G.R. Case No.227/2018 of the Court of learned S.D.J.M., Rairangpur) for quashing of proceeding Abhisek Pattnaik … Petitioner -versus- State of Orissa and another … Opposite Parties Advocates appeared in the case through hybrid mode: For Petitioner: Mr.Samarendra Mohanty, Advocate -versus- For Opp.Party No.1: Mr.S.N. Das, Addl. Standing Counsel For Opp.Party No.2: Mr.A.C.Das, Advocate --------------------------------------------------------------------------- CORAM: JUSTICE SASHIKANTA MISHRA JUDGMENT 31.7.2023. CRLMC No.2309 of 2023 Page 1 of 10 Sashikanta Mishra,J. The Petitioner is the sole accused in G.R. Case No.227/2018 of the Court of learned S.D.J.M., Rairangpur for allegedly committing the offences under Sections 294/332/353/341/506 of I.P.C. In the present application filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., he seeks quashment of the aforesaid criminal proceedings.
Facts
2. The facts of the case are that on 1st June, 2018 at about 2.20 A.M. when Havildar, Bipin Chandra Mahanta of Town Out Post Rairangpur was performing patrolling duty with Home Guard Upendranath Mahanta, he saw a motor cycle coming from Murmu Chowk side. They attempted to stop the motorcycle which was without registration number but the rider suddenly drove the motor cycle in high speed. They followed the rider to some distance but he lost balance while crossing the humps near Shiva Temple and fell down sustaining bodily injuries. The policemen detained him and informed the S.I., Surendranath Jena, and staff of the above fact. The S.I. and his staff CRLMC No.2309 of 2023 Page 2 of 10 arrived at the spot whereupon the rider was asked to identify himself but he abused the policemen in obscene language and caught hold of the colour of Havildar, Bipin Ch. Mahanta and said that he is the President of the Congress Party. Saying so, he kicked Bipin and Sunaram Majhi (driver) and threatened to kill them by engaging goondas. As he was attempting to further assault the policemen, he was restrained. 3. Havildar, Bipin Ch. Mahanta submitted a written report before the I.I.C., Rairangpur Town P.S. at about 9.30 A.M. which led to registration of Rairangpur Town P.S. Case No.46/2018 under Sections 294/332/353/ 341/506 followed by investigation. Upon completion of investigation, charge sheet was submitted also for the aforementioned offences. 4. By order dated 18th January, 2019, cognizance of the offences was taken by the Court below and summon was issued pursuant to which, the accused appeared and was released on bail. Charge was framed against him by order dated 30th September, CRLMC No.2309 of 2023 Page 3 of 10 2022. On 7th January, 2023, the accused filed a petition to discharge him from the case which came to be rejected by order dated 4th February, 2023 passed by the Court below on the ground that there was no scope to consider the discharge petition after charge had been framed. 5.
Legal Reasoning
to prima facie show commission of the offences by the accused and therefore, the Court below rightly framed charge against him. The correctness or otherwise of the allegations can only be tested during trial. 8. Mr. A.C. Das, learned counsel appearing for the informant has adopted the arguments advanced by the State counsel. 9. The facts of the case being as narrated before, this Court is required to see whether continuance of the criminal proceeding is justified. Before doing so, it would be apposite to refer to the celebrated decision of the Apex Court rendered in the case of State of Haryana and others vs. Ch. Bhajan Lal and others; reported in 1993 Supp (1) SCC 335, wherein certain guidelines were issued for exercise of inherent powers by the High Court under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. The relevant paragraph is quoted herein below; “(1) where the allegations made in the First Information Report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie CRLMC No.2309 of 2023 Page 5 of 10 constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused; (2) where the allegations in the First Information Report and other materials, if the F.I.R. do not any, accompanying disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Section 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code; (3) where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or ’complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused; (4) where the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a offence but cognizable constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code; (5) where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused; (6) where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution the and proceedings and/or where is a the specific provision concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party; in the Code or of there continuance CRLMC No.2309 of 2023 Page 6 of 10 the proceeding criminal proceeding (7) where a is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or is maliciously where instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge”. 9. Keeping the above principles in mind and on an objective assessment of the materials on record, this Court finds that the accused is alleged to have driven the motorcycle in high speed for which he lost balance while crossing the humps resulting in his fall. He sustained the following injuries as evident from the injury report on police requisition; “(1)Abrasion ½ x ½ ” on bridge of nose (2)Abrasion ½ x ½ ” on chin of mandible (3)Abrasion ½ x ½ ” on just above upper lip and below nose.” 10. It is after sustaining such injuries that the accused is said to have abused the policemen in obscene language, threatened and attempted to assault them. It must be kept in mind that there were as many as five policemen at the spot. Firstly, it does not stand to reason as to why the accused would suddenly flare up and abuse the policemen who had not ill-treated CRLMC No.2309 of 2023 Page 7 of 10 him at all. Secondly, it seems rather far-fetched that a person as badly injured as the accused at the relevant time would have the mental and physical courage and even strength to abuse, threaten and assault two policemen from out of the group of five including the A.S.I. of Police. The further allegation that he threatened to kill the policemen by engaging goondas seems entirely out of context as there was no plausible reason whatsoever for him to say so. 11. Thus, this Court finds that the very nature of the accusations appear to be improbable or in any case, difficult to believe. To reiterate, it would be too much to expect a single person, who is himself injured having had a fall from the motor cycle to muster courage to pick up a fight with five policemen and that too, seemingly without any plausible reason. Thus, the very substratum of the case appears to be shaky and unworthy belief. In Bhajan Lal (Supra) which justifies exercise of a power by the High Court under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. to quash a criminal proceeding it has CRLMC No.2309 of 2023 Page 8 of 10 been held, ‘where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused.” True, charge has already been framed in this case, but then this Court having noticed the sheer improbabilities of the prosecution case, it would be a travesty of justice to allow the proceeding to continue. It must also be remembered that the criminal proceeding is not to be initiated as a matter of course as held by the Apex Court in the case of Pepsi Foods Ltd. v. Special Judicial Magistrate, (1998) 5 SCC 749; reported in (2005) 8 SCC 89 by observing as follows; “Summoning of an accused in a criminal case is a serious matter. Criminal law cannot be set into motion as a matter of course. It is not that the complainant has to bring only two witnesses to support his allegations in the complaint to have the criminal law set into motion. The order of the Magistrate summoning the accused must reflect that he has applied his mind to the facts of the case and the law applicable thereto. He has to examine the nature of allegations made in the complaint and the CRLMC No.2309 of 2023 Page 9 of 10 evidence both oral and documentary in support thereof and would that be sufficient for the complainant to succeed in bringing charge home to the accused. It is not that the Magistrate is a silent spectator at the time of recording of preliminary evidence before summoning of the accused. The Magistrate has to carefully scrutinise the evidence brought on record and may even himself put questions to the complainant and his witnesses to elicit answers to find out the truthfulness of the allegations or otherwise and then examine if any offence is prima facie committed by all or any of the accused. 12. Thus, having found the prosecution story inherently improbable, this Court does not deem it necessary to examine whether the ingredients of the alleged offences exist or not because, when the foundation goes, the edifice built upon it would also go.
Arguments
Heard Mr. S. Mohanty, learned counsel for the Petitioner, Mr. S.N.Das, learned Addl. Standing Counsel for the State and Mr. A.C.Das, learned counsel appearing for the informant-Opposite Party No.2. 6. Mr. Mohanty would argue that the case as laid by the prosecution is inherently improbable and not worthy of belief. Moreover, none of the offences alleged are even, prima facie, made out. Therefore, continuance of the proceedings would amount to abuse of the process of law. 7. Mr. S.N.Das, learned Addl. Standing Counsel, the for the State argues that there are adequate materials CRLMC No.2309 of 2023 Page 4 of 10
Decision
13. For the foregoing reasons therefore, the CRLMC is allowed. The proceedings in G.R. Case No.227/2018 of the Court of learned S.D.J.M., Rairangpur are hereby quashed. …………….…….……….. Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: ASHOK KUMAR BEHERA Judge Designation: A.R.-CUM-SR.SECRETARY Ashok Kumar Behera Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 01-Aug-2023 11:27:16 (Sashikanta Mishra) CRLMC No.2309 of 2023 Page 10 of 10