The High Court
Case Details
THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK CRLMC No.2381 of 2024 (In the matter of an application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973) Swagatika Sahani ……. Petitioner -Versus- State of Odisha and Another ……. Opp. Parties For the Petitioner : M/s. Banshidhar Satapathy, S. Satapathy and B.N. Parida, Advocates For the Opp. Parties : Mr. S.N. Biswal, Additional Standing Counsel CORAM: THE HONOURABLE SHRI JUSTICE SIBO SANKAR MISHRA Date of Hearing: 08.04.2025 :: Date of Judgment: 05.05.2025 S.S. Mishra, J. The present CRLMC is filed by the petitioner under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, assailing the order dated 27.12.2021 passed by the learned J.M.F.C.(Cog. Taking), Keonjhar in G.R. Case No. 1240 of 2020, whereby cognizance of offences under Sections 420, 468, 471 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code
Legal Reasoning
has been taken against the petitioner. It is contended that the charge sheet submitted by the IIC, Harichandanpur Police Station does not disclose any material sufficient to justify charges alleged in proceeding against the petitioner. 2. Heard Mr. Banshidhar Satapathy, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. S.N. Biswal, learned Additional Standing Counsel for the opposite parties. 3. Prosecution case in brief devoid of unnecessary details is that one Subasini Das, a qualified graduate holding a Bachelor of Science and a Bachelor of Education (B.Ed.) degree, had applied for the post of Sikhya Sahayak (Junior Teacher – Contractual). After due verification of her educational credentials, she was appointed to the post vide Order No.188 dated 31.03.2018 issued by the Collector-cum-Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Keonjhar, and was posted at Jamujodi Nodal U.P School, Harichandanpur. While serving in the said capacity, the petitioner was disengaged from service vide letter No. 2518 dated 03.09.2021 issued by the District Project Coordinator (SS), Keonjhar, without affording any opportunity of hearing and without conducting any inquiry, on the ground that the B.Ed. certificate produced by her, purportedly issued by Bundelkhand Page 2 of 12 University, Jhansi was found to be forged. The said disengagement was based on a communication allegedly received from the University. 4. It is submitted that the Bundelkhand University, Jhansi, subsequently issued letters dated 07.09.2020 and 11.11.2020, categorically affirming and conveying that the B.Ed. certificate issued by it was genuine. Despite this, the FIR was lodged by the Block Education Officer, Harichandanpur, on 07.09.2020 at Harichandanpur Police Station continues the proceedings. The relevant part of letter of the BEO, Harichandanpur to the IIC, Harichandanpur Police Station reads as under: " I Sri Purna Chandra Amanta, full capacity of power in Harichandanpur Block Education Office I am to intimate that one Sasmita Malik, D/O Kuna Malik, JTC Dhoradiambo UGUP School and one Swagatika Sahani D/O Ramesh Chandra Sahani have produced fake certificates during time of engagement as communicated by DPC, SSA, Samagra Sikshya, Keonjhar vide his letter No 1855/PED/ Date 27.08.2020. the detailed information of verification of certificates is given below…." Based on the said letter, Harichandanpur P.S. Case No. 92/2020 was registered under Sections 420, 468, 471 and 34 of IPC. After investigation, the I.O. submitted the Charge Sheet No. 185 dated 23.12.2021 blissfully ignoring the clarification letter issued by the University. The charge sheet contains the following conclusive remarks. Page 3 of 12 "Under the above fact and circumstances, as discussed is well made out facie evidence above and prima U/S.420/468/471/34 IPC against accused persons namely (1) Sasmita Mallick (27) D/o Kuna Mallick of Paida, PO- Siha, Dist-Jajpur (2) Swagatika Sahani (28) C/o Ramesh Chandra Sahani of vill-Sarat, PO-Chanahatta, Dist-Khurda A/Pr W/o Manmatha Sahoo of Villl-Jamujodi, PS- Harichandanpur, Dist-Keonjhar. Hence I Submit CS vide PS CS NO.185,dt.23.12.21,U/S. 420/468/471/34 IPC against the above noted accd person to face their trial in the court of Law." On bare reading of the conclusive remarks of the charge sheet it can be safely inferred that the charge sheet is completely ambiguous and the culmination of completely non application of mind. However, on receipt of the charge sheet, the learned J.M.F.C. (Cog. Taking), Keonjhar passed the following order taking cognizance of the offences on 27.12.2021: " The case record is put up today on the received of charge sheet from IIC, Harichandanpur PS FIR No. 185 dt. 23.12.2021 u/s 420/468/471/34 IPC against the accused person 1. Swagatika Sahani, W/o- Manmatha Sahoo, Vill. Jamujodi, PS. H. Pur 2. Sasmita Malik, D/o- Kuna Mallick of Vill. Paida, PS- Byree, Dist.- Jajpur along with CDS, statement of witness recorded u/s 161 CrPC and other relevant documents. Perused the case record i.e. FIR, CD, statement of witnesses recorded u/s 161 CrPC and other material available in this case. There is primafacie material to proceed in this case u/s 420/468/471/34 IPC, Hence cognizance of offence punishable u/s 420/468/471/34 IPC is taken. The accused person is not arrested as per provision of 41 (A) CrPC notice. Hand over the case record to G/C. " Page 4 of 12 Petitioner is aggrieved by the aforementioned order and has assailed the same in this proceeding. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the entire proceedings is an abuse of the process of law as the basic premise of the prosecution regarding the allegation of production of fake B.Ed. certificate is found to be false and has been contradicted by the issuing authority itself. The Bundelkhand University, vide its letters dated 07.09.2020 and 11.11.2020, clearly stated that the B.Ed. certificate of the petitioner is genuine. It is further submitted that neither the Investigating Officer nor the court below considered these material documents, and the charge sheet is mechanically filed without any reference to the university’s clarification. 6. It is further urged that the State has neither disputed the authenticity of the university's letters, nor is there any material to show that the petitioner has fabricated any certificate and on bare perusal of the charge sheet, it is evident that it suffers from vagueness and lack of application of mind, especially in light of the unimpeached documentary evidence exonerating the petitioner. It would be apt to reproduce the Page 5 of 12 letters received from Bundelkhand University about the clarification regarding the certificate in question for ready reference: Date 07/09/2020 “No.BU/COF/2020-9100 To The District Project Coordination RTE-SSA, Keonjhar Office of the DPC Samagra Shiksha Keonjhar 755001 Subject: Letter of modification Sir, This is under Ref. to this Office Letter No. BU/COF/2020/2317 dt. 29.07.2020 is response to your letter letter for Verification of Education Certification Bearing Letter No. 1440 dt. 20.06.2020. In this matter, it is informed that some lapse has been revealed in the said verification since (a) the University along with all its dept. was closed at that point of time following a lockdown and Containment declared in the city as a result were not available to the officer on duty (roster), (b) the Verification was made at an haste through the available (just) later on, after reopening of the Office, the Scrutiny revealed the lapses & it is felt necessary to recall the Verification Report with this letter modification for your kind information & record The result is as follows at actual. Sl. No. 1 078604276 Remark Roll No Course Result Name PASS 2014 B.Ed Year S/O GOPAL KRUSHNA MOHANTY PUNYOTOYA CHAKRA SUBASINI DAS PANCHANAN MOHANTY CHAKRADHAR CHAKRA NAKULCH DAS SWAGATIKA SAHANI SUJIT KUMAR MOHANTY SUNITA DATTA RAMESH CH. SAHANI GANESH CH. MOHANTY NISHAKAR DATTA B.Ed 2014 6522960 PASS B.Ed 2013 049678242 PASS B.Ed 2014 213695 PASS CORRECT & B.Ed 2013 074627687 PASS B.Ed 2013 589121704105 PASS ARATRARAN JENA AKRURA JENA B.Ed 2013 8802578 PASS DEBASIS SENAPATI JADUMANI SENAPATI B.Ed 2013 042503125 PASS CORRECT & GENUINE CORRECT & GENUINE CORRECT & GENUINE GENUINE CORRECT & GENUINE CORRECT & GENUINE CORRECT & GENUINE CORRECT & GENUINE 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Hence, this letter supersedes the previous letter and the University regrets for the Inconvenience caused to you and or anybody else.” Page 6 of 12 The reading of the letter makes it evidently clear that the University not only clarifies superseding its previous letter but also expresses regret for inconvenience. It appears from the record that the police have acted upon the letter issued by the university previously which stands superseded by this letter dated 07.09.2020. It also appears that the Investigating Officer didn’t make any endeavour to check the authenticity of this clarification letter. At the same time existence of this letter is not doubted at any quarter. Hence, this Court cannot close its eyes while dealing with the issue in Lis to take into consideration the letter dated 07.09.2020. In addition to the letter dated 07.09.2020 the University have issued another letter bearing No. BU/COF/2020/4547 dated 11.11.2020, requesting to accept the above modification letter. 7. Even after such clarification, the removal from service wounded the petitioner, so the Petitioner came before this Court in W.P.(C) No.35864 of 2021 , in which this Court as an interim relief directed staying the disengagement order. The relevant paragraphs are reproduced herein below for ready reference: Page 7 of 12 “8. It is submitted by learned counsel for the Petitioner that he has been disengaged from service on the ground that he produced fake B.Ed. Certificate and Mark Sheets at the time of selection issued by the Bundelkhand University, Jhansi. However, the said Certificates could not be verified due to Covid-19 situation. He has further stated that he filed two letters from the Bundelkhand University under Annexures-6 and 7 of the writ petition, whereunder the University has stated that the Certificates issued in favour of the Petitioner are not fake. 9. In such view of the matter, as an interim measure, it is directed that the order of disengagement of the Petitioner dated 03.09.2021 under Annexure-1 shall remain stayed till the next date.” Following this order the petitioner was reinstated in service by an Office Order of the District Project Office, Samagra Sikshya (SS) & Right to Education (RTE) Keonjhar vide Letter No 422 dated 08.02.2023, which is reproduced for ready reference: “OFFICE ORDER The Hon'ble High Court of Odisha in IA No.16653 of 2021 arising out of W.P.C No.35864 of 2021 passed an interim order directing the order of stay operation of disengagement of the petitioner Swagatika Sahani issued vide this office Letter No-2518/PED(SSRC) dt.03.092021 in obedience to the interim order Dtd.11.01.2022 passed in IA No.16653 and keeping in view the order Dtd.15.11.2022 passed in Contempt No-6693 of 2022 Swagatika Sahani Sikshya Sahayak(JTC) is hereby taken back to his/her previous engagement as Sikshya Sahayak (JTC) subject to final outcome of W.P.C No.35864 of 2021. On being taken back to his/her previous engagement Swagatika Sahani is required to furnish an under taking in shape of affidavit to the effect that he/she will abide by the final decision of the Hon;ble High Court in W.P.C. No- 35864 of 2021 and also he/she will abide by all terms and conditions of her contractual engagement as mentioned in the Resolution No-25605/SME Dtd-26.12.2016 of Govt.in S Page 8 of 12 & ME Deptt, Odisha and such other instructions received from the Govt./OSEPA form time to time. On being the Block furnished of such undertaking Education Officer, Harichandanpur shall allow Swagatika Sahani to Join as JTC/JT at Jamujodi Nodal UPS. Zilla Parishad, Keonjhar” By the order of Collector-cum-CEO, However, even after reinstatement in service the criminal proceeding against the petitioner still continues till date. No doubt the Writ Petition is still pending; the outcome of the same shall have bearing on the fate of the petitioner, regarding her service. But in the absence of any contrary documents doubting the clarificatory letter dated 07.09.2020 issued by the University the petitioner cannot be subjected to ordeal of criminal trial. 8. This Court is of the considered view that continuation of the criminal proceedings against the petitioner despite the unequivocal certification of genuineness of the alleged fake certificate by the concerned university amounts to gross abuse of the process of law. The law is well settled by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State Of Haryana And Ors vs Ch. Bhajan Lal And Ors1, that the inherent powers 1 1992 SCC (Cri) 426 Page 9 of 12 under Section 482 Cr.P.C. can be invoked to prevent abuse of the process of the court and to secure the ends of justice, and held thus: sufficiently channelised and “102. In the backdrop of the interpretation of the various relevant provisions of the Code under Chapter XIV and of the principles of law enunciated by this Court in a series of decisions relating to the exercise of the extraordinary power under Article 226 or the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code which we have extracted and reproduced above, we give the following categories of cases by way of illustration wherein such power could be exercised either to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice, though it may not be possible to lay down any precise, clearly inflexible defined and guidelines or rigid formulae and to give an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases wherein such power should be exercised. (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 constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused. (2) Where the allegations in the first information report and other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not 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 cognizable offence but 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 Page 10 of 12 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 and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party. (7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge.” Similarly, the judgement of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Mahmood Ali v. State of U.P.2 also echoes similar principle in which it was held thus: “13. In frivolous or vexatious proceedings, the Court owes a duty to look into many other attending circumstances emerging from the record of the case over and above the if need be, with due care and averments and, circumspection try to read in between the lines. The Court while exercising its jurisdiction under Section 482CrPC or Article 226 of the Constitution need not restrict itself only to the stage of a case but is empowered to take into account the the initiation/registration of the case as well as the materials collected in the course of investigation. Take for instance the case on hand. Multiple FIRs have been registered over a period of time. It is in the background of such circumstances the registration of multiple FIRs assumes importance, thereby attracting the issue of wreaking vengeance out of private or personal grudge as alleged.” circumstances leading overall to In the case at hand, the very foundation of the prosecution is rendered baseless in light of the subsequent clarifications issued by 2 (2023) 15 SCC 488 Page 11 of 12 Bundelkhand University. The action of the Block Education Officer in lodging the FIR appears to be hasty and uninformed, and the police investigation, mechanically conducted, ignored crucial exculpatory evidence. The cognizance order also reflects non-application of judicial mind as the learned Magistrate failed to consider the materials favourable to the accused which were available on record. 9. In view of the above, the criminal proceedings against the petitioner in G.R. Case No.1240 of 2020, arising out of Harichandanpur P.S. Case No.92 of 2020, including the order dated 27.12.2021 regarding taking cognizance by the learned J.M.F.C. (Cog. Taking), Keonjhar are hereby quashed. 10. Accordingly, the CRLMC is allowed. The High Court of Orissa, Cuttack The 5th of May, 2025/ Ashok …………………. (S.S. Mishra) Judge Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: ASHOK KUMAR JAGADEB MOHAPATRA Designation: Secretary Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa Date: 05-May-2025 19:01:11 Page 12 of 12