The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK CRLMC No. 2772 of 2022 An application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 arising out of G.R. Case No. 494 of 2022 in the Court of the learned S.D.J.M., Bhanjanagar. -------------- Duti Krushna Mahapatra ..…. Petitioner -versus- 1. State of Odisha 2. Jyoti Ranjan Behera …… Opp. Parties ------------------------------------------------------------------------- For Petitioner Mr. S.R. Mahapatra, Adv. : For Opp. Parties : Ms. S. Patnaik, A.G.A. (for O.P. No.1) Mr. S.K. Mahanty, Adv. (for O.P. No.2) ------------------------------------------------------------------------- CORAM: HONOURABLE MISS JUSTICE SAVITRI RATHO JUDGMENT 11.07.2025 Savitri Ratho, J This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the petitioner for quashing the order of cognizance dated 22.07.2022 and the criminal proceeding in G.R. Case No. 494 of 2022 pending in the Court of the learned S.D.J.M., Bhanjanagar CRLMC No. 2772 of 2022 Page 1 of 11 arising out of Bellaguntha P.S. Case No. 109 of 2022, registered for the offence punishable under Sections 294, 420, 506 and 34 of IPC. 2.
Legal Reasoning
When the matter was listed on 18.08.2023, Mr. S.R. Mohapatra, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted on instructions that the petitioner is not in a position to settle the matter as he is not in a position to pay back the money of the opposite party No.2, and hence the CRLMC may be decided on merit. PROSECUTION CASE 3. The prosecution allegations in brief are that on 28.09.2016, the petitioner had borrowed total amount of Rs 2,00,340/- from the informant. Rs 1,60,000/- through bank and Rs 40,340/- cash. He has assured to return the money within six months. After six months, on 29.01.2020, he committed on bond paper that he would return the money within six months. After six months he did not return the money, he came to the police station on 07.09.2021 and 11.01.2022 again he committed to the informant that he would return the money. On 12.03.2022, the informant went to the house of the petitioner to ask for his money, but the petitioner abused him in obscene language refused to return the money and threatened to kill CRLMC No. 2772 of 2022 Page 2 of 11 him. On 12.04.2022 at about 1.50 a.m., the petitioner came to the house of the informant and called him outside. When he came out he threatened to kill him and rape his wife. SUBMISSIONS 4. Mr. S.R. Mahapatra, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted the petitioner had borrowed the money for necessity and had intended to pay it back but was not able to do so due to unforeseen circumstances. As there was no dishonest intention when he borrowed the money, his subsequent inability to pay cannot amount to cheating. A breach of contract or agreement does not amount to cheating and a civil dispute cannot be given the cloak of criminal liability. He further submitted that that false allegations under Sections 294 and 506 IPC have been made against the petitioner only to maintain the allegation of cheating for which the order dated 22.07.2022 taking cognizance of the offences under Sections 294, 420, 506 and 34 of IPC is liable to be quashed. Relying on the decisions of the Supreme Court in the case of Hridaya Ranjan Pd. Verma & Others vs. State of Bihar & Others