The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK CRLMC No.3094 of 2024 Rabin Kumar Patnaik ..... State Of Odisha -versus- ..... Petitioner Represented By Adv. - Sougat Dash Opp.Party Represented By Adv. – M.K.Mohanty, ASC
Legal Reasoning
CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR MOHAPATRA
Decision
ORDER 28.08.2024 Order No. 01. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual /Physical Mode). 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned counsel for the State. Perused the 482 Cr.P.C. application and impugned order dated 16.09.2023 as well as the documents annexed thereto. 3. The present application has been filed by invoking inherent power of this Court under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. to quash the impugned order dated 16.09.2023 passed by the learned S.D.J.M., Udala in 1.C.C. No.48 of 2021. 4. The above noted 1.C.C. Case was initiated at the instance of the complainant-Petitioner alleging commission of an offences punishable under Sections 406, 409, 420, 468, 467, 120-B, 34 of IPC. Learned counsel for the petitioner at the outset submitted that initially a complaint case was lodged against the two named accused persons, however, the same was forwarded to the I.I.C. of the concerned Police Station under Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C. to register an F.I.R. and Page 1 of 4. investigate in the matter. After investigation, the I.O. submitted a final form indicating therein that the case is a mistake of fact. Thereafter, the Petitioner filed a protest petition under Annexure-2 to the application. Since no action was taken on such protest petition, the petitioner had earlier approached this Court by filing CRLMC No.2806 of 2023 which was disposed of by a coordinate bench vide order dated 07.07.2023, directing the learned S.D.J.M., Udala to dispose of C.T. Case No.823 of 2021 corresponding to 1.C.C. Case No.48 of 2021 as expeditiously as possible. 5. Pursuant to the order passed by the learned Coordinate Bench in the previous CRLMC application, the petitioner appeared before the learned trial court. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that although the petitioner appeared before the learned trial court and relied upon a judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Inspector of Police and Anr. vs. Battenapatla Venkata Ratnam and Anr. reported in 2015 (II) OLR (SC)-383, however, learned trial court has not taken note of the judgment. He further contended that vide impugned order dated 16.09.2023 the learned S.D.J.M., Udala has held that the alleged conduct of the Opposite Party-accused persons has a reasonable connection with their official duty. Therefore, the sanction under Section 197 of Cr.P.C. is necessary as the accused persons are government employees. Since the petitioner has not obtained any sanction against the accused persons, who are government officers, the learned court below, vide impugned order dated 16.09.2023, has directed the petitioner to obtain sanction from the competent authority before proceeding further in the matter. Being aggrieved by such order the petitioner has approached this Court by filing the present application. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner at the outset contended that the alleged conduct/ misdeed of the Opposite Party-accused persons are not Page 2 of 4. connected with their official duty. He further submitted that the complaint contains allegation with regard to misappropriation of government funds which is definitely not a part of the official duty of government officers. In such view of the matter, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that no sanction under Section 197 of Cr.P.C. is required to proceed further against the present petitioner. In the aforesaid context, learned counsel for the petitioner referred to the aforesaid judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in 2015 (II) OLR (SC)-383. 7. On perusal of the aforesaid judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Inspector of Police’s case (supra), this Court observed that in a case of similar nature where allegations were made for commission of offence punishable under Section 420, 468, 477-A, 120-B read with Section 109 of IPC, the Hon’ble Apex Court has specifically observed that indulgence of officers in cheating or fabrication of records or misappropriation cannot be said to be in discharge of their official duty and their official duty is not to fabricate records or permit evasion of payment of duty and cause loss to the revenue. Moreover, in the said reported judgment, the learned Magistrate had categorically held that no sanction is necessary, however, the High Court erred in coming to a conclusion that sanction is necessary and the learned Magistrate has correctly taken the view if at all the said view of sanction is to be considered, it could be done at the stage of trial only. Finally, the Hon’ble Supreme Court was pleased to set aside the order passed by the Hon’ble High Court and the learned trial court was directed to proceed with the trial and dispose of the case as expeditiously as possible within the stipulated period of time. 8. On a careful consideration of the submissions made by learned counsels appearing for the respective parties, further on a scrutiny of the materials on record and upon a careful reading of the impugned order, Page 3 of 4. this Court is of the view that principle laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid judgment has not been taken into consideration while passing the impugned order dated 16.09.2023. In such view of the matter, this Court is of the view that the impugned order dated 16.09.2023 is unsustainable in law and, accordingly, the same is hereby set aside. Further, the matter is remanded back to the learned trial court to re-examine the issue keeping in view the aforesaid judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court. Additionally, the learned trial court is directed to provide an opportunity of hearing to both the petitioner-complainant as well as the accused persons and proceed as per the direction of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the above noted judgment. 9. With the aforesaid observations/ directions, the CRLMC application stands disposed of. Anil ( A.K. Mohapatra ) Judge Page 4 of 4. Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: ANIL KUMAR SAHOO Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa Date: 29-Aug-2024 11:21:16