The High Court
Case Details
THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK CRLMC No.3009 of 2024 (In the matter of an application under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023) Karunakar Mishra and others ……. Petitioners -Versus- State of Odisha and another ……. Opposite Parties For the Petitioners : Mr. Subir Palit, Senior Advocate Mr. Debi Prasad Tripathy, Advocate Mr. I. Swain, Advocate Mr. S. R. Sahoo, Advocate 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. 1. The petitioners have filed the present application under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) praying for quashing of the Final Form/Report filed under Section 173 Cr.P.C (corresponding Section 193 of BNSS 2023) dated 14.07.2022, in C.T. Case No.630 of 2021 arising out of Balasore Town P.S. Case No.0176 of 2021 for the offences under Sections 294/354A/ 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (corresponding to Sections 296, 75, 351(2)/(3) read with Section 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023), pending in the Court of the learned S.D.J.M., Balasore. 2. The prosecution case originates from an F.I.R. dated 16.08.2021 lodged by the informant namely Rebati Nayak, an ex-employee of Suryoday Small Finance Bank Ltd., Balasore Branch, alleging that she was abused, sexually harassed, and threatened by her former colleagues upon seeking clearance after resignation. The allegations stem from the events purportedly occurred in connection with her resignation and demand for a clearance certificate from the Bank. Based on her complaint, the police registered the present case and, upon investigation, submitted the Charge Sheet. 3.
Legal Reasoning
party no. 2/informant by this Court in the present petition. Subsequently, on 07.01.2025, the petitioners have been allowed to take Dasti notice to serve the opposite party No.2. The Deputy Manager Legal of the bank has filed affidavit of service, dated 20.01.2025 inter alia, stating as under: “4. That, as per the Hon'ble High Court direction on 14/01/25, I along with Advocate Clerk Mr Prasant Kumar Mohanty visited the address of OP No. 2 along with Mr. Karunakar Mishra, Nirakar Sahoo and Subhrata Panda who are Petitioner no. 1, 2 & 3 and in Page 3 of 16 order to avoid any unwanted situation, the above mentioned Petitioner were waiting outside the village. 5. That, I along with Mr Prasant Kumar Mohanty visited the House of OP No. 2 at Sugo, PS: Basudevpur, Dist: Bhadrak and requested her to receive the Notice and stated the facts about the Criminal Misc. Case. The OP no.2 along with her father Mr Ajay Kumar Nayak refused to receive the Notice and upon our repeated request to receive the same, they abused us and asked us to leave their house. We apprehended an unwanted situation and intimated the police control room for assistance. 6. That, one person named Chintamani Nayak who identified himself as Sarpanch of Sugo Grampanchayat, acknowledged our visit on the backside of the Notice by endorsing with his seal and signature. In the meantime the PCR from Basudevpur PS came and after appraising the situation, they have recorded the details and we left without the Notice being served, as the OP No.2 refused to receive the same.” In view of the affidavit, the service on opposite party No.2 is deemed to be sufficient. However, she chose not to appear and contest the matter. 7. Mr. Palit, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners, submitted that the allegations in the F.I.R. and statements recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C are vague, inconsistent, and inherently improbable. It is contended that no prima facie offence is made out against the Petitioners, particularly under Section 354A of I.P.C., as the essential ingredients are absent. The Call Detail Records (CDRs), which could have substantiated Page 4 of 16 the allegations of harassment at odd hours, have not been procured. Furthermore, no witness has corroborated the allegations, and Section 161 of Cr.P.C statements reflect the underlying employment-related dispute rather than any sexual misconduct. 8. It is further submitted by Mr. Palit, learned Senior Counsel that the alleged acts did not occur in a public place, rendering Section 294 of I.P.C. inapplicable. Petitioner No.4, the HR Manager, operates from the Mumbai office and has never visited the Balasore Branch. Her implication in the charge-sheet, it is urged, is without basis and non est in the eyes of law and reinforces the contention that the I.O. has not applied mind. He has relied upon the judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Neeharika Infra Pvt Ltd v. State of Maharashtra and Others reported in (2021) 19 SCC 401 wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court evaluated the grounds on which the High Courts can exercise the power under 482 of Cr.P.C (corresponding to Section 528 of BNS 2023). The Hon'ble Supreme Court at paragraph-10.3 has highlighted the following grounds on which a F.I.R./complaint can be quashed by the High Court by exercising inherent jurisdiction, which reads thus:- Page 5 of 16 (a) 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. (b) 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. (c) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala Fides and/or where the proceeding is for maliciously wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge. instituted with an ulterior motive 9. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has briefly identified the ground in which this Court can exercise the jurisdiction under Section 528 of BNSS, 2023 (Section 482 of Cr.P.C.). The present complaint falls under all the above three grounds of the said judgment. 10. Per contra, Mr. Biswal, learned Additional Standing Counsel the State opposed the prayer for quashing and submitted that the investigation was carried out as per the procedure and sufficient material has been collected to form part of the charge-sheet. It is further argued that the disputed facts can only be tested in the trial. Therefore, the petition is premature. Page 6 of 16 11. This Court has carefully perused the F.I.R., the anticipatory bail order passed by this Court, and the charge-sheet, along with the seizure list and most significantly, the independent witnesses statements recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C, which are crucial in determining as to whether a prima facie case is made out or not. 12. Perusal of the case record discloses that the opposite party No.2, Ms. Rebati Nayak (Informant), filed a written complaint at the Town Police Station, Balasore, on 16.08.2021. She alleged that she had worked as a Relationship Officer at Suryoday Small Finance Bank Ltd., Balasore Branch. She received her salary for the month of May, 2021 but not for June, 2021 as she was on leave. She also mentioned that she had tested positive for COVID-19 twice. The bank provided her with Rs.10,000/- advance during her illness, and she did not work during her notice period due to her illness. She had sent her resignation to the Bank HR (RO), Subhrata Panda, who is petitioner No.3 in this case. However, her request for clearance was denied due to the non-clearance of the advance salary she had availed. Ms. Nayak then contacted all the petitioners over phone. When they did not answer, she tried reaching them through her sister's Page 7 of 16 phone. She has admitted of threatening the petitioners, stating that if she did not receive the clearance, she would set herself on fire. The petitioner No.1 and petitioner No.3 reported this to the Sahadev Khunta Police Station, Balasore, fearing that Ms. Nayak might commit suicide. Following this complaint, a police officer mediated the situation and has been agreed that the opposite party No.2 would be issued the clearance letter after the Management gives clearance. However, she did not receive it. The informant/opposite party No.2 further alleged that the petitioner No.1 and petitioner No.2 subjected her to physical and mental torture. She claimed that they asked her to visit the field for work with ill intentions and harassed her when she refused to engage in a physical relationship, they threatened to kill her. In her F.I.R., she stated that the clearance certificate was not issued to her despite assurances, which could have resolved the issue. The petitioner Nos.1 and 2 are the Bank Officials, whereas petitioner Nos.3 and 4 are the HR Managers posted at Mumbai and Petitioner No.4 is a lady officer. 13. Statements of multiple staff members of the Suryoday Small Finance Bank Ltd., who were present during the alleged incident, reveal a Page 8 of 16 consistent and corroborative version of real events which contradict the allegations in the F.I.R. From the statement of the witnesses following aspects are emanated:- (a) Urbasi Sahoo, Subhashree Bej, and Manas Kumar Rana, all employees of the bank, categorically stated that the informant became agitated when the bank refused to issue clearance without proper HR approval. In her anger, she pulled down the office shutter, detained staff members, and threatened to file a police case if the clearance was not issued. (b) Malay Kumar Bala, a Manager in the Banking Finance section, clarified that the HR Manager and others involved in the alleged incident were part of a different branch (Group Finance) and that he was not aware of any sexual harassment or criminal intimidation, reinforcing the absence of any overtly criminal behaviour. (c) Pratap Kumar Sahu and Manas Kumar Rana (second statement) further affirmed that while the informant demanded clearance, the staff advised her that only the Head Office could Page 9 of 16 authorize it. There is no mention of any verbal abuse, sexual harassment, or threats imparted by the accused petitioners. (d) The statements of Dilip Kumar Jena and Alok Kumar Das, both seizure witnesses, reveal that the only documents seized were an appointment letter and a resignation letter, wholly unrelated to the alleged offences.” 14. Importantly, none of the independent witnesses corroborate any of the material allegations under Section 354A of I.P.C. There is a total absence of any mention of sexual remarks, gestures, physical advances, or harassment, which are essential ingredients of the offence under Section 354A of I.P.C. (now Section 75 of BNS, 2023). 15. Similarly, no statements support the invocation of Section 294 of I.P.C., which requires the alleged acts of obscene language are uttered in a public place to the annoyance of others. The alleged events occurred within the four walls of the bank branch, a private setting, and no third- party or customer witnesses were alleged to have been annoyed or heard any such language. Page 10 of 16 16. The statements also do not establish any criminal intimidation under Section 506 of I.P.C. If anything, the threats appear to have been made by the informant, not the petitioners as per F.I.R. version. 17. The Supreme Court, in the case of STATE of Haryana and ors vs. Ch. Bhajan Lal and ors., reported in 1992 AIR 604, has held thus:- “8.1. In the exercise of the extra-ordinary power under Article 226 or the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the following categories of cases are given 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 defined and sufficiently channelised and inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae and to give an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases wherein such power should be exercised: (a) 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. (b) where the allegations in the First Information Report and other materials, if any, accompanying the F.I.R. 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; (c) 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; Page 11 of 16 so absurd and (d) 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; (e) where the allegations made in the FIR or inherently complaint are 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; (f) 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; (g) where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala 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.” fide and/or where 18. The present case squarely falls within the illustrative categories laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal (supra), particularly under clauses (a), (c), (e), and (f) of para 8.1. A holistic reading of the F.I.R., charge-sheet, and especially the statements of independent witnesses recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. reveals that even if the allegations are taken at its face value, they do not prima Page 12 of 16 facie constitute any cognizable offence against the petitioners. The alleged acts neither satisfy the essential ingredients of Sections 294, 354A, or 506 of I.P.C. (now corresponding provisions under BNS, 2023), nor do they make out any other Penal offences. Rather, the incident appears to be an employment-related disagreement, which was inappropriately converted into a criminal case. Furthermore, the allegations are so absurd and inherently improbable that no prudent person could reasonably conclude that an offence has been committed. Finally, the facts also indicate a strong element of mala fide, as the criminal proceeding appears to have been initiated out of personal vengeance and frustration upon being denied clearance without procedural compliance. Hence, in view of the Bhajan Lal principles, the continuation of the proceedings would amount to an abuse of the process of law and justify the Court’s intervention under its inherent powers to secure the ends of justice. 19. The Court also relied upon the case of Neeharika Infrastructure v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 2021 SC 1918, a three Judge Bench, reiterated the parameters laid down in R.P. Kapur v. State of Punjab and Page 13 of 16 State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal and held that while the Courts ought to be cautious in exercising powers under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., they do have the power to quash. The Hon’ble Supreme Court held that quashing may be appropriate:- fide and/or where “[...](7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly the attended with mala proceeding instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge." is maliciously 20. In the present case, this Court finds that the allegations arise from a strained employer-employee relationship and pertain to the denial of a clearance certificate due to non-fulfilment of HR obligations. The F.I.R. itself contains admissions by the complainant of having threatened self- harm and acknowledges repeated contact with the accused for clearance over phone, suggesting a dispute of an administrative nature rather than criminal misconduct. 21. No specific overt act has been alleged individually against the alleged accused person that satisfies the legal requisites of Section 354A of I.P.C. There is no mention of unwelcome physical contact, demand for Page 14 of 16 sexual favours, or other acts defined under the provision. The allegations under Section 294 of I.P.C. fail for lack of a public setting as required by law. The Investigating Officer failed to secure any CDRs to corroborate alleged threats or odd-hour calls. The HR Manager, petitioner No.4, has been implicated without any cogent link to the alleged occurrence. No witness has attributed any overt act to her. The seizure list contains only appointment and resignation letters, documents irrelevant to the alleged offences. 22. It thus appears to this Court that the criminal proceedings are manifestly attended with mala fide intention and are instituted with an ulterior motive to harass the petitioners. The substratum of the dispute is clearly civil and administrative in nature, and the criminal process has been misused to give it a colour of criminality. Allowing such prosecution to continue would amount to an abuse of the process of law and result in unwarranted harassment and prejudice to the petitioners. 23. In view of the foregoing analysis, this Court is of the considered opinion that no prima facie case is made out against the petitioners for the offences under Sections 294, 354A, 506 read with 34 of IPC. The Final Page 15 of 16 Form/Charge Sheet dated 14.07.2022 filed in C.T. Case No.630 of 2021 arising out of Balasore Town P.S. Case No.0176 of 2021, pending in the Court of the learned S.D.J.M., Balasore, is hereby quashed.
Arguments
Heard Mr. Palit, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners and Mr. Biswal, learned Additional Standing Counsel for the State. 4. It is the case of the petitioners that the F.I.R. was lodged maliciously and as a retaliatory measure after the bank refused to issue a Page 2 of 16 clearance certificate owing to the informant’s failure to comply with HR policy, including non-adjustment of an advance of Rs.10,000/- paid to her during her COVID-related leave period. It is contended that she had also threatened to implicate the petitioners in a false case and commit suicide, prompting the petitioners to first lodge a preventive complaint on 14.08.2021 before the Sahadev Khunta Police Station. 5. The petitioners were granted anticipatory bail by this Court in ABLAPL No.10877 of 2021 by order dated 03.11.2021. Subsequently, charge-sheet was submitted following the investigation, and the petitioners now seeking for quashing of the same. 6. Vide order dated 26.11.2024, notice was issued to the opposite
Decision
24. Accordingly, the CRLMC is allowed and disposed of. ……………… S.S. Mishra (Judge) The High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Dated the 5th day of May, 2025/ Swarna, Sr. Stenographer Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: SWARNAPRAVA DASH Designation: Senior Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa Date: 05-May-2025 19:06:49 Page 16 of 16