The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK CRLMC No.5455 of 2015 Nirmala Pati …. Petitioner Mr.D.Sarangi,Advocate -versus- State of Odisha and another …. Opposite Parties . CORAM:
Legal Reasoning
Mr. P.C.Das, A.S.C. JUSTICE A.K. MOHAPATRA Order No.
Decision
ORDER 14.03.2024 19. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual /Physical Mode). 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned counsel appearing for the complainant-Opposite Party No.2. Perused the records as well as the statement of the witnesses. 3. The present case has been filed by invoking inherent power of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the entire criminal proceeding bearing 1CC Case No.107 of 2015 filed before the learned S.D.J.M., Sonepur, which was registered for commission of offence under Sections 323/506/294 of the IPC. The factual background leading to the filing of the complaint case is that, the complainant who is 1st year student of ANM Training Centre at Sonepur lodged a complaint against the present petitioner who happens to be the principal of the college at the relevant point of time. As per the allegation in the complaint, in the intervening night of 27 and 28 June, 2015 some culprits criminally trespassed in the Centre and while the students were sleeping, some mobile phones was stolen and they also attempted to outrage the modesty of the girl students. On 28.06.2015, the parents of the complainant went to the training Centre to meet the petitioner with her permission. It is further alleged in the complaint that the petitioner // 2 // saw that the complainant is narrating the events of yesterday’s night to her parents. On seeing that, the petitioner stated to the complainant that he will falsely implicate her in a criminal case. Thereafter, it is the alleged that the petitioner slapped the complainant on the face. On such allegation the present complaint case was instituted on 23.09.2015. 4. After institution of the complaint case initial statement of the complaint was recorded. Thereafter, the learned Magistrate conducted any inquiry under Section 202 Cr.P.C. in which two witnesses as well as the complainant were examined. Accordingly, cognizance of the offence was taken on 19.11.2015. Being aggrieved by the initiation of the compliant case and further continuance thereof by taking cognizance, the petitioner has approached this Court for quashing the criminal proceeding. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner at the outset contended that although the alleged occurrence took place on 28.06.2015, however, the compliant case was lodged on 23.09.2015. He further contended that in the other case which was registered with regard to the incident that have occurred in the intervening night of 27th and 28th June, 2015, the present complainant has been shown as one of the accused. As a result of which he was in custody for almost one month. Thereafter, the present complaint case has been filed by implicating the petitioner who was the principal of the ANM Training College at the relevant point of time. Learned counsel for the petitioner further contended that the present complaint case is an outcome of the malafide intention and out of vengeance of the complainant who has filed the case against the present petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner, by invoking the principles laid down in State of Haryana vs. Bhajan Lal reported in AIR 1992 SC 604 , submitted that the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid judgment is being followed till now. He further contended that by applying the principles laid down the aforesaid judgment, the complaint case initiated against the present petitioner is liable to be quashed as the same has been instituted only to harass the present petitioner. In course of his argument // 3 // learned counsel for the petitioner by elaborating the entire situation submitted that there is enough reason to come to a conclusion that the present complaint case has been filed with malafide intention and a motive to harass the present petitioner who was the principal of the college at the relevant point of time. In the aforesaid factual background learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the complaint case against the present petitioner is liable to be quashed. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the complainant on the other hand objected to the quashing the 1CC case registered at her instance. He further contended that the parents of the complainant were ill-treated by the present petitioner. He further submitted that the statement of the witnesses have also been recorded in course of inquiry under 202 Cr.P.C. Therefore, the learned Court below has not committed any illegality in proceeding further in the matter and thereafter taking cognizance of the offence vide order dated 19.11.2015. In such view of the matter, learned counsel appearing for the complainant submitted that there is no ground on which the complaint case should be quashed and that case of the petitioner does not come within the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Suprme Court in Bhajanlal’s Case (supra). 6. Having heard learned counsels appearing for the respective parties, on a careful examination of the background facts as well as materials on record, this Court observes that their exist chequered history so far the present case is concerned. It appears that initially an allegation was made with regard to the illegal trespass and theft in the hostel of ANM Training Centre at Sonepur. As a result of such incident an F.I.R. was lodged wherein the complainant has been shown as one of the accused. Therefore, the same provides sufficient reason to come to a conclusion that the present complaint case has been instituted with a malafide motive and in order to harass the present petitioner. The present petitioner being the Principal of the Training Centre was well within her authority to summon the parents of the students against whom certain allegations were made. Moreover, on a careful analysis of // 4 // the factual background of the case it appears that although the alleged occurrence took place on 28.06.2015. However, the F.I.R. on complaint was registered only on 23.09.2015. Therefore, there is a delay in registering the complaint case which has not been properly explained in the complaint petition itself. 7. in view of the aforesaid analysis of factual background of the present case, further keeping in view the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Bhajanlal’s case supra, this Court is of the considered view that the fact of the present case falls squarely within the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the above noted judgment. This Court further feels that further continuance the present case would not be in the greater interest of justice. On the contrary the same would cause serious prejudice to the petitioner who was working as the principal of institution at the relevant point of time. In such view of the matter, this Court is of the view that the complaint case registered against the present petitioner is liable to be quashed, and accordingly the same is hereby quashed. As a result of which the 1CC case No.107 of 2015 stands closed. 8. With the aforesaid observations/directions, the CRLMC is allowed. ( A.K. Mohapatra ) Judge Rubi Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: RUBI BEHERA Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa Date: 27-Mar-2024 12:14:28