The High Court
Case Details
IN THE THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CU T CUTTACK CRLMC No. 3917 of 2023 Namita Mohap Anr. ohapatra and …. Petitioners Mr. R. K. Mallick, allick, Advocate -versus- State of Odisha a ha and Anr. …. Opp. Parties Op Mr. S. J. Moh . Mohanty, ASC CORAM: THE HON’BLE BLE MR. JUSTICE CHITTARANJAN D JAN DASH Date of Judgment: 02.07.2025 Chittaranjan Dash, ash, J. 1. By means means of this application, the Petitione titioners, Namita Mohapatra and N and Namita Dash, have approached this C this Court under Section 482 of the of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking t king to quash the order of cogniza ognizance dated 22.12.2022 passed by t by the learned S.D.J.M., Bhubane hubaneswar, in CT Case No. 6777 of 2022, 2022, arising out of Saheed Nagar P agar P.S. Case No. 523 of 2022, whereby ereby cognizance has been taken tak for the offences under under Sections 341/294/509/355/5 /355/506/34 of the Indian Penal Code a ode against the Petitioners. 2. The backgr
Facts
background facts of the case, are that the Pet the Petitioners are residents of Brahm Brahmeswarapatna under Saheed Nagar Pol ar Police Station, Bhubaneswar. The r. The prosecution case arises out of an FIR an FIR lodged on CRLMC No. 3917 of of 2023 Page 1 of 6 08.11.2022 by th
Legal Reasoning
prima facie case is case is made out against Petitioner No.2, Na .2, Namita Dash, and the continuati tinuation of the criminal proceeding against gainst her would amount to an abuse n abuse of the process of law. 9. According ordingly, the CRLMC is allowed in part. part. The order taking cognizance zance dated 22.12.2022 passed by the learne learned S.D.J.M., Bhubaneswar in C r in CT Case No. 6777 of 2022 is hereb hereby quashed insofar as it relates relates to Petitioner No.2. However, ever, as regards Petitioner No.1, Namita mita Mohapatra, this Court finds no inds no justification to interfere at this stage s stage. It is open to her to raise a raise all permissible legal and factual pl ual pleas at the appropriate stage, stage, including the stage of framing of ng of charge or seeking discharge, harge, in accordance with law. 10. The CRLM
Arguments
by the informant, Smt. Madhumita Rou a Rout, who is employed as a as a Swachhakarmi at the dumping y ing yard, MCC Durgapurpatna und tna under the Bhubaneswar Municipal Corpo Corporation. It is alleged that on 05. on 05.11.2022 at about 10.30 P.M., while the hile the Informant was performing h ing her official duty, one Malay Mohapatr hapatra allegedly confronted her ove er over not wearing the prescribed uniform, iform, abused her in filthy language guage, and spat on her face in the prese presence of co- workers. Upon b pon being advised by Badagada P.S. fo .S. for want of jurisdiction, the in the informant subsequently lodged the FIR he FIR at Saheed Nagar P.S. Furth Further, on 07.11.2022 at around 11 d 11 A.M., the Petitioners along along with others allegedly visited the wo the worksite and threatened the wor he workers for having reported against the c t the co-accused, recorded videos, a eos, and issued threats to remove them fro em from service. Pursuant to inves investigation, the police submitted charg charge sheet on 17.12.2022 under under Sections 341, 294, 509, 355, 506, an 06, and 34 of the Indian Penal Cod l Code, and the learned S.D.J.M., Bhuban hubaneswar took cognizance of th of the said offences by order dated 2 ated 22.12.2022. Aggrieved thereby thereby, the Petitioners have approached ached this Court seeking quashme ashment of the said cognizance order order and the consequential crim al criminal proceeding in CT Case No. 6777 6777 of 2022. 3. Mr. R.K. R.K. Mallick, learned counsel for the the Petitioners, submits that the a the allegations in the FIR are vague and u and unsupported by any specific m ific material to attract the ingredients of th s of the offences under Sections 341 ns 341, 294, 509, 355, 506, and 34 IPC. It is C. It is contended that the Petitioner itioners were falsely implicated due to prior o prior animosity and the charge sh rge sheet was submitted without proper inv per investigation. The 161 Cr.P.C. st P.C. statements do not disclose any overt act ert act on the part CRLMC No. 3917 of of 2023 Page 2 of 6 of the Petitioners ioners, and cognizance has been taken m en mechanically without application lication of judicial mind. Therefore, it is pray is prayed that the entire proceeding eding be quashed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. r.P.C. to prevent cess. abuse of process. 4. Mr., learn learned Additional Standing Counsel for el for the State, opposes the prayer prayer for quashing and submits that there ar here are sufficient materials in the ca the case diary to proceed against the Petiti Petitioners. The FIR and the statem statements under Section 161 Cr.P.C. reve . reveal that the Petitioners accom accompanied the main accused during t ring the second incident and threa threatened the informant and other worke workers, thereby attracting the offe e offences alleged. It is argued that at th t at the stage of cognizance, only only a prima facie case is required, and , and the learned Magistrate rightly ightly took cognizance based on the charge charge sheet and supporting materi materials. Thus, the application under S der Section 482 Cr.P.C. deserves d rves dismissal. 5. Upon a car n a careful perusal of the FIR dated 08.11.20 8.11.2022 and the materials on recor record, particularly the statement of the inf the informant and the charge sheet, i heet, it appears that the alleged incidents re ents relate to two distinct dates i.e. i.e. 05.11.2022 and 07.11.2022. The fir he first incident, dated 05.11.2022, 2022, involves one Malay Mohapatra alleged allegedly abusing and spitting on the on the informant while she was on duty. The y. The Petitioners were not present d esent during this occurrence, a fact not disp t disputed by the prosecution. The s The second incident, dated 07.11.2022, is 22, is alleged to have occurred wh ed when the Petitioners, along with others, thers, visited the dumping yard and rd and purportedly threatened the informant rmant and her co- workers. The FIR e FIR records that during the second in nd incident, the CRLMC No. 3917 of of 2023 Page 3 of 6 accused persons sons “cautioned all workers” and issued issued threats in relation to reportin porting against Malay Mohapatra. Significant ificantly, the FIR expressly names Namita amita Mohapatra, linking her directly irectly to the second incident. It alleges that es that she, along with others, includ including security guards, threatened the w the workers, and is therefore squar squarely implicated in the alleged act o act of criminal intimidation. In co . In contrast, Namita Dash’s name does not find any mention in the n the narrative portion of the FIR or in or in the initial complaint lodged dged by the informant. Her presence at th e at the scene of occurrence is neith s neither described nor independently establi established in any of the 161 Cr.P.C. r.P.C. statements examined. The inclusion o sion of her name appears to be omn e omnibus in nature, lacking any specific al cific allegation or overt act attributed ributed to her. Such vague and generalised a lised accusations, in the absence of ce of supporting material, do not satisfy th isfy the threshold for sustaining crim g criminal prosecution. 6. The Hon’b Hon’ble Apex Court in its decision in the in the matter of State of Haryana yana vs. Bhajanlal reported in 1992 Sup 2 Supp(1) SCC 335, has laid dow d down the following guidelines for exercis xercise of power under Section 482: n 482:- rmation ken at their not prima ase against Where the allegations made in the first inform “(1) Where t or the complaint, even if they are taken at report or th value and accepted in their entirety do not p face value facie consti constitute any offence or make out a case ag ccused. the accused here the allegations in the first information r (2) Where other materials, if any, accompanying the FI and other justifying disclose a cognizable offence, not disclo tigation by police officers under Section 156( investigatio ode except under an order of a Magistrate w the Code e urview of Section 155(2) of the Code. the purview ation report the FIR do tifying an n 156(1) of trate within CRLMC No. 3917 of of 2023 Page 4 of 6 (3) Where FIR or com of the sam offence and (4) Where, cognizable offence, no without an Section 155 (5) Where t are so absu which no conclusion against the (6) Where t of the prov (under whi institution where there concerned grievance o (7) Where with mala maliciously wreaking v spite him d ade in the in support ion of any constitute a cognizable lice officer lated under here the uncontroverted allegations made i or complaint and the evidence collected in su e same do not disclose the commission of ce and make out a case against the accused. here, the allegations in the FIR do not constit izable offence but constitute only a non-cogni ce, no investigation is permitted by a police o ut an order of a Magistrate as contemplated u on 155(2) of the Code. here the allegations made in the FIR or comp o absurd and inherently improbable on the ba h no prudent person can ever reach a lusion that there is sufficient ground for procee st the accused. here there is an express legal bar engrafted in e provisions of the Code or the concerned er which a criminal proceeding is instituted) t ution and continuance of the proceedings a e there is a specific provision in the Code o erned Act, providing efficacious redress fo afted in any cerned Act uted) to the ings and/or ode or the ess for the r complaint the basis of ach a just proceeding ce of the aggrieved party. here a criminal proceeding is manifestly atte mala fide and/or where the proceedin iously instituted with an ulterior motive king vengeance on the accused and with a vie him due to private and personal grudge.” tly attended ceeding is motive for h a view to 7. In view of iew of the above, this Court finds it pertinent rtinent to reiterate that while the pow he power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is to b is to be exercised sparingly, it may may nonetheless be invoked to prevent ab ent abuse of the process of court court where the allegations are patently tently absurd or manifestly attend ttend to implicate a person without any fo any foundational basis. As regards gards Petitioner No.2, Namita Dash, the ca the case squarely falls within such p such parameters, as there is no specific refer c reference to her in the FIR, nor i nor is any overt act attributed to her. I her. In contrast, Petitioner No.1, N o.1, Namita Mohapatra, has been named in t ed in the FIR and the allegation of is n of issuing threats is directed at her. The pl The plea taken on CRLMC No. 3917 of of 2023 Page 5 of 6 her behalf regardin garding the lack of specific ingredients cons ts constituting the alleged offences, nces, though not entirely without merit, erit, pertains to factual aspects tha cts that would require appreciation of evid f evidence. It is well settled that s that such pleas, which touch upon the suf he sufficiency of evidence or prob r probable defence, are not within the n the scope of interference unde under Section 482 Cr.P.C. at the pre pre-trial stage. Accordingly, the , the Court finds no ground to quash the h the cognizance order in so far as P ar as Petitioner No.1 is concerned. 8. As a result result, this Court is of the considered opin d opinion that no
Decision
CRLMC is hence disposed of. Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BIJAY KETAN SAHOO Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA Date: 03-Jul-2025 16:06:03 A.K.Pradhan/Bijay (Chittaranjan Da an Dash) Judge CRLMC No. 3917 of of 2023 Page 6 of 6