The High Court
Case Details
THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK CRLMC No. 2565 of 2023 (In the matter of an application under Sections 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973) Bidyabharati Panda ……. Petitioner -Versus- State of Odisha and another ……. Opp. Parties For the petitioner : Mr. Bishnu Prasad Pradhan, Advocate For the Opposite Parties : Mr. U.R. Jena, AGA Mr. Partha Sarathi Nayak, Advocate for Opposite Party No.2 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE SHRI JUSTICE SIBO SANKAR MISHRA Date of Hearing: 17.04.2025 : : Date of Judgment: 03.07.2025 S.S. Mishra, J. The petitioner, has invoked the jurisdiction of this Court under section 482 Cr.P.C seeking quashing of the order of cognizance dated 12.04.2023 taken by learned S.D.J.M, Paralakhemundi in 1.C.C. Case No.22 of 2022 U/s.302 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code. The petitioner prays that such complaint case against her is not maintainable prima facie as she is already facing trial for the same offence U/s.285 and 304-A of IPC. 2. The facts of the case, as presented, are double-faced and offer sharply divergent narratives. For the convenience of appreciation, both versions are presented separately and explored bereft of unnecessary detail, yet with sufficient clarity to understand the competing standpoints. Version of the Accused-Petitioner (Wife of the deceased) According to the accused-petitioner, who is the wife of the deceased Assistant Conservator of Forests (ACF), Soumya Ranjan Mohapatra, the incident in question was purely accidental. On 12.07.2021, while the deceased was engaged in burning certain discarded or irrelevant household articles inside the official residence allotted to him, he allegedly used kerosene as an accelerant. While doing so, he inadvertently suffered a massive burn injury. The petitioner submits that upon witnessing the incident, she was deeply shocked and immediately raised an alarm, following which local neighbours, forest department staff, and others from the nearby residential quarters rushed to the spot. With their assistance, the Page 2 of 25 deceased was promptly transported to the nearest hospital that is DHH, Parlakemundi for treatment where his dying declaration was recorded and later referred to SCBMCH, Cuttack and subsequently to Aswini Hospital, Cuttack for emergency treatment. Despite the medical attention, the burn injuries proved fatal, and the deceased eventually succumbed after a brief period of hospitalization. It is the case of the petitioner that the entire incident was accidental, devoid of any foul play, and that she herself was traumatized and helpless during the sequence of events. She further alleges that false and motivated allegations were subsequently made by the informant (the father of the deceased), driven by misunderstanding and family discord. The petitioner maintains that the initial investigation by the police, which culminated in a final report and charge sheet under Sections 285 and 304-A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), was based on a proper appreciation of the available evidence and medical records. She asserts that there is no credible material to support any allegation of homicide/death, let alone conspiracy to murder. Page 3 of 25 Version of the Informant (Father of the Deceased) In stark contrast to the narrative of the petitioner, the informant, who is the father of the deceased ACF, contends that his son was deliberately killed, and the incident was a pre-planned homicidal act, disguised as an accident. According to him, the deceased was in the prime of his life, professionally well-placed, and had a turbulent marital relationship with the accused-petitioner. He alleges that due to persistent domestic tension, disputes relating to financial matters, and alleged interference by the wife’s family in the personal and professional life of the deceased, the marriage had become strained. The informant claims that on the date of the incident, he was neither informed immediately nor allowed to interact freely with his son during his hospitalization. The version about accidental burning, according to him, is an afterthought concocted by the accused, and he
Facts
questions why his son, a forest officer well-versed in fire safety, would burn materials using kerosene in such a hazardous manner without assistance. Page 4 of 25 He further points out several suspicious and incriminating circumstances which were ignored while filing of the Final Form in the earlier case. The informant (in this case the complainant) was agonized by removal of the names of the suspected DFO and the Cook, who may have done the act in connivance with the wife of the deceased. Based on these factors, the informant was dissatisfied with the police investigation, which in his view was superficial and lacked depth, particularly on aspects relating to motive, conspiracy, and role of the accused persons. He consequently filed a detailed protest petition before the learned Magistrate, enclosing supplementary materials, including witness affidavits, medical reports, and photographs of the scene, and prayed for either further investigation under Section 173(8) CrPC or for independent cognizance of offences under Section 302 read with Section 120-B IPC. The protest petition, though captioned as one seeking further investigation, contained a narrative of the offence, description of the accused persons, list of proposed witnesses, and prayer for summoning them. Upon consideration, the learned Magistrate treated the protest Page 5 of 25 petition as a complaint within the meaning of Section 2(d) CrPC, and invoking the procedure under Sections 200 and 202 CrPC, recorded
Legal Reasoning
preliminary satisfaction that a prima facie case of murder and conspiracy was made out. Thereafter, the learned Magistrate proceeded to take cognizance under Sections 302 and 120-B IPC, and directed issuance of process against the present petitioner and other co-accused. This order of cognizance and issuance of process forms the subject matter of challenge in the present petition under Section 482 CrPC. 3. Heard Mr. Bishnu Prasad Pradhan, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. U.R. Jena, learned AGA for the State and Mr. Partha Sarathi Nayak, learned counsel for the Opposite Party No.2. Submissions of the Petitioner 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that such cognizance is impermissible in law, particularly when the Magistrate had already taken cognizance based on the police charge sheet under Sections 285 and 304-A IPC, and thus this result in a second cognizance on the same facts, which is legally unsustainable. It is submitted that the Page 6 of 25 learned Magistrate erred in treating a protest petition filed under Section 173(8) CrPC as a complaint under Section 200 CrPC and, without ordering further investigation or referring the matter to the police, straightaway took cognizance under Sections 302 and 120-B IPC. Such a course of action amounts to an abuse of process and is in violation of Rule 20 of the General Rules and Circular Orders (Criminal), which mandates that a protest petition arising out of a final report can only be treated as a complaint if it discloses a prima facie case and is supported by examination of the complainant and witnesses. 5. It is further submitted that the Magistrate’s action in registering a second criminal proceeding in the form of ICC Case No.22/2022 is impermissible under law when cognizance has already been taken in G.R. Case No.334/2021 arising out of the same incident. The same set of allegations cannot result in parallel proceedings. The decision of the Magistrate, therefore, violates the doctrine of double jeopardy and offends settled principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Page 7 of 25 cases such as T.T. Antony v. State of Kerala1 and Amitbhai Anil Chandra Shah v. CBI2. The petitioner’s counsel submitted that the investigation in the instant case was conducted by a Special Investigation Team of CID, CB comprising nine senior officers, and involved detailed analysis of medical reports, post-mortem findings, scientific evidence, polygraph test results, and statements of 71 witnesses under Section 161 CrPC. Upon thorough investigation, no material was found to suggest a case of murder or conspiracy, and the charge sheet was rightly submitted under Sections 285 and 304-A IPC. It is thus submitted that the ingredients of Sections 302 or 120-B IPC are wholly absent, and the conclusion drawn by the Magistrate is unsupported by either the complaint petition or the material produced during the inquiry. The earlier cognizance under Sections 285/304-A IPC based on CID’s findings negates the basis for any subsequent