The High Court
Case Details
THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK CRLMC No.4283 of 2023 (In the matter of an application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973) Sudhir Ranjan Nanda ……. Petitioner -Versus- State of Odisha & another ……. Opposite Parties For the Petitioner : Mr. Deba Kumar Rath, Advocate For the Opp. Parties : Mr. J.P. Patra, Additional Standing Counsel (For the Opp. Party No.1) CORAM:
Legal Reasoning
this stage, cannot be gone into by this Court in the jurisdiction sought to Page 8 of 10 be invoked by the petitioner. The case of the petitioner is not falling under any of the exceptions carved out by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Haryana and others v. Bhajan Lal and others, reported in 1992 Supp (1) Supreme Court Cases 335. In Bhajan Lal (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court has postulated the broad guideline carving out as many as seven exceptions, wherein the Court can invoke its jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. The exceptions are as follows: “(1) 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. (2) Where the allegations in the first information report and other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR 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. (3) 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. (4) 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. (5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no Page 9 of 10 prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. (6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a institution and instituted) criminal proceeding 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. the to is (7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where 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.” Apparently the case of the petitioner does not fall under any exception as mentioned above. 17. In view of the aforementioned discussion, I am not inclined to give indulgence to the petitioner at this stage in the present proceeding. However, liberty is granted to the petitioner to raise all the issues before the Court below at the appropriate stage.
Arguments
THE HONOURABLE SHRI JUSTICE SIBO SANKAR MISHRA Date of Hearing: 17.09.2024 : Date of Judgment: 23 .12.2024 S.S. Mishra, J. In the present petition, the petitioner, by invoking the inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C., has questioned the initiation of the criminal prosecution against him by the opposite party No.2 and seeks quashing of the entire proceeding in C.T. (Special) Case No.06 of 2021, arising out of Jharsuguda P.S. Case No.55 of 2021 pending in the court of the learned District & Sessions Judge-cum- Special Judge, Jharsuguda for the commission of alleged offences punishable under Sections 342/294/506/34 of the IPC read with Section 3(2)(va)/3(1)(r)/ 3(1)(s) of the SC & ST (PoA) Act, 1989. 2. Heard Mr. Deba Kumar Rath, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. J.P. Patra, learned Additional Standing Counsel appearing for the opposite party-State. 3. The allegation against the petitioner in the F.I.R. lodged by the opposite party No.2 is that, her daughter had been pursuing the nursing training in the GNM College, Beheramal, Jharsuguda for the academic session 2018-2019. On 30.01.2021, at about 4.30 P.M. while her daughter was in the College, two students of 3rd year, namely, Dileswari Bag and Rashmita Majhi started abusing her in obscene language. On the next day, the victim informed the incident to her mother, i.e., the opposite party No.2. Perturbed by such event, opposite party No.2 called the petitioner (Director of the Institution) and narrated the above incident. However, the petitioner had not taken that incident seriously, Page 2 of 10 rather asked the opposite party No.2 to meet her daughter in the College. On the following day, i.e., on 01.02.2021, the complainant and her husband rushed to the College to meet their daughter. They met the present petitioner in his office and requested him to call their daughter to meet. The petitioner stated that, their daughter has been appearing in the examination and the examination will be over at about 5 P.M to 6 P.M., then only they can meet their daughter. When the matter stood thus, suddenly their daughter came weeping and told the opposite party No.2 that, at the instance of the petitioner, the above named two girls, who harassed her earlier, detained her in a room and did not allow her to appear in the examination. She was also threatened to be killed. Since the petitioner ignored the complaint made by the opposite party No.2, finding no other option, the opposite party No.2 went to the Police Station and lodged the F.I.R. The F.I.R. was registered, the investigation was carried out and the charge sheet was filed against the petitioner. The present petitioner was arrested on 02.02.2021 and remanded to the judicial custody. He was admitted to bail only on 09.02.2021. Page 3 of 10 4. The petitioner is now assailing the charge sheet filed against him in the present proceeding. Mr. Rath, learned counsel for the petitioner has extensively read out the statements of the opposite party No.2, the victim girl, the father of the victim girl and the other witnesses recorded under Section 161 Cr. P.C. He submitted that even if all the statements are taken at its face value, at least no case under the provisions of the SC & ST (PoA) Act is made out against the petitioner. 5. Mr. Rath, learned counsel for the petitioner has also relied upon the order dated 09.02.2021 passed by the learned Special Judge, Jharsuguda granting the petitioner bail. He has picked up a particular paragraph of the said order, which reads as under:- “Up-to-date CD received today. From the case record it reveals that the statement of the informant has been recorded but she has not implicated the accused for abusing her by aspiring her caste. The statements of the material witnesses have already been recorded and there is no chance of tampering the evidence.” Relying upon the aforementioned observation made by the learned trial Court, Mr. Rath submits that no case under the provisions of the SC & ST (PoA) Act is made out against the petitioner. He has also relied Page 4 of 10 upon series of judgments to buttress his argument that, if there was no intention of any kind to humiliate the victim, there cannot be an offence under Section 3(r)(s) of the SC & ST (PoA) Act. He has read out the provisions in extenso. 6. Mr. Rath, learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Hitesh Verma v. The State of Uttarakhand and Others, reported in AIR 2020 SC 5584 and he emphasised paragraphs-17 and 18 of the aforementioned judgment which reads as under: “17. In another judgment reported as Khuman Singh v. State of M.P. [Khuman Singh v. State of M.P., (2020) 18 SCC 763 : 2019 SCC OnLine SC 1104], this Court held that in a case for applicability of Section 3(2) (v) of the Act, the fact that the deceased belonged to Scheduled Caste would not be enough inflict enhanced punishment. This Court held that there was nothing to suggest that the offence was committed by the appellant only because the deceased belonged to Scheduled Caste. The Court held as under: to 15. As held by the Supreme Court, the offence must be such so as to attract the offence under Section 3(2)(v) of the Act. The offence must have been committed against the person on the ground that such person is a member of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe. In the present case, the fact that the deceased was belonging to “Khangar” Scheduled Caste is not disputed. There is no evidence to show that the offence was committed only on the ground that the victim was a member of the Scheduled Caste and therefore, the conviction of the appellant- accused under Section 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and Page 5 of 10 Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act sustainable.” is not 18. Therefore, offence under the Act is not established merely on the fact that the informant is a member of Scheduled Caste unless there is an intention to humiliate a member of Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe for the reason that the victim belongs to such caste. In the present case, the parties are litigating over possession of the land. The allegation of hurling of abuses is against a person who claims title over the property. If such person happens to be a Scheduled Caste, the offence under Section 3(1)(r) of the Act is not made out.” 7. Mr. Rath also relied upon paragraph 14 of the judgment in the case of Khuman Singh v. State of M.P., reported in (2020) 18 SCC 763, which reads as under: “14. …………….. the offence must be such so as to attract the offence under Section 3(2) (v) of the Act. The offence must have been committed against the person on the ground that such person is a member of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe. In the present case, the fact that the deceased was belonging to “Khangar”- Scheduled Caste is not disputed. There is no evidence to show that the offence was committed only on the ground that the victim was a member of Scheduled Caste and therefore, the conviction of the appellant-accused under Section 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act is not sustainable.” The above cited case is not so effectively relevant as it deals with Section 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, whereas the present petitioner is charged for the Page 6 of 10 offences under Sections 3(2)(va)/3(1)(r)/ 3(1)(s) of the SC & ST (PoA) Act, 1989. 8. Mr. Rath, learned counsel further submitted that the evidence form part of the charge sheet makes it abundantly clear that, there is no utterance made by the present petitioner in the public view making aspiration by the caste of the victim. However, the informant has designed the case out of sheer vendetta, personal grudge and animosity. 9. On the strength of the aforementioned judgments cited at the Bar and the fact scenario of the present case, Mr. Rath, learned counsel seeks indulgence of this Court for quashing of the entire prosecution initiated against the petitioner by the opposite party No.2. 10. Despite service of notice on the opposite party No.2, none appeared on her behalf. 11. Learned counsel for the State, at the outset, submitted that, invocation of the jurisdiction of this Court by the petitioner at this stage is uncalled for. The petitioner has other procedural remedy against his contention and grievance. Page 7 of 10 12. Mr. Patra, learned State Counsel further submitted that in nutshell the petitioner has urged that from the reading of the material form part of the charge sheet, particular offences are not made out. This Court, at this stage, is forbidden to go into the details of the material placed by the police in the charge sheet and analysed the evidentiary value of the statements of the witnesses recorded under Section 161 of the Cr. P.C. and quash the entire proceedings. 13. I have perused the copy of the complaint, the charge sheet, statements of the complainant/victim as well as the independent witnesses. 14. I have evaluated the evidences placed before the Court below by the police through the report under Section 173 of the Cr.P.C. and evaluated those materials in the light of the judgments cited by Mr. Rath, learned counsel for the petitioner at the Bar. 15. I am not convinced by the contentions raised by Mr. Rath, learned counsel for the petitioner at this stage. 16. The grievances raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner at
Decision
18. With the aforementioned liberty, the CRLMC is disposed of. The High Court of Orissa, Cuttack The 23rd of December, 2024/Subhasis Mohanty, Personal Assistant …………………. (S.S. Mishra) Judge Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: SUBHASIS MOHANTY Designation: Personal Assistant Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack. Date: 23-Dec-2024 19:23:43 Page 10 of 10