The High Court
Case Details
THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK CRLMC No.3749 of 2024 (In the matter of an application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973) Nirmal Kumar Mahto ……. Petitioner -Versus- State of Odisha and another ……. Opposite Parties For the Petitioner : Mr. Kshirod Kumar Rout For the Opp. Parties : Mr. Udit Ranjan Jena, Additional Government Advocate CRLMC No.4085 of 2024 Praveen Kumar and another ……. Petitioners -Versus- State of Odisha and another ……. Opposite Parties
Legal Reasoning
punishable under Sections 420/506/34 of I.P.C. prima facie is made out against the petitioners. Hence, I am not inclined to entertain this petition at this stage. However, liberty is granted to the petitioners to resort to the remedy available to them under law before the learned trial Court at appropriate stage. Page 8 of 9 11. Accordingly, the CRLMC is dismissed. …………………. (S.S. Mishra) Judge The High Court of Orissa, Cuttack The 4th of March, 2025/Swarna Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: SWARNAPRAVA DASH Designation: Senior Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa Date: 09-Jul-2025 18:12:24 Page 9 of 9
Arguments
For the Petitioners : Mr. Kshirod Kumar Rout For the Opp. Parties : Mr. Udit Ranjan Jena, Additional Government Advocate CORAM: THE HONOURABLE SHRI JUSTICE SIBO SANKAR MISHRA Date of Hearing: 05.12.2024 :: Date of Judgment: 04.03.2025 S.S. Mishra, J. The petitioners have invoked the inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of the criminal prosecution as well as the order of cognizance dated 16.08.2024 passed by the learned S.D.J.M., Koraput in 1.C.C. Case No.27 of 2024 initiated against them for the alleged commission of the offences under Sections 420/506/34 of I.P.C. 2. Heard Mr. Kshirod Kumar Rout, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. Udit Ranjan Jena, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State. 3. The allegation against the petitioners in the complaint is that, the opposite party No.2, who is the father-in-law of the present petitioner No.1 filed a complaint case in the Court of the learned S.D.J.M., Koraput impleading the petitioner as accused No.1 alleging therein that on 17.04.2022, the petitioner No.1 along with his father came to NALCO Township Quarter of the complainant for negotiation of marriage of her Page 2 of 9 daughter and the petitioner No.1. On 24.04.2022, the petitioner No.1 asked the complainant to help him financially and to remit the amount in his bank account as well as the account of his family members. It is alleged that on 25.04.2022, prior to the marriage of his daughter, the complainant transferred Rs.14,00,000/- to the accounts of the petitioner No.1, his sister and brother. As per the commitment, the accused persons are liable to refund the said amount. When the complainant asked the accused /petitioner No.1 to refund the amount, he threatened to eliminate the complainant. Hence, this case. The present case is arising out of a complaint filed by the opposite party No.2/complainant. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that even if the case of the complainant is accepted at its face value, no criminal liability could be fasten upon the petitioners because the dispute is basically of a civil nature. The opposite party No.2 has employed the arm twisting method by filing the present complaint to recover the alleged amount paid by him to the petitioners. He further submitted that the petitioner No.1 had been married to the daughter of the complainant on 03.05.2022. The complainant had transferred some amount in the account of the petitioners to make the payment to some business Page 3 of 9 establishment and the petitioners have already repaid the loan amount. Since the marriage between the petitioner No.1 and the daughter of the complainant/opposite party No.2 did not go well and eventually dissolved by the judgment of the learned Judge, Family Court, Rourkela on 09.04.2024. The complainant has turned around and filed the present complaint. He has strongly relied upon the judgment of the learned Judge, Family Court, Rourkela in Civil Proceeding No.134 of 2023. He has relied upon paragraph-4 of the judgment dated 09.04.2024, which reads as under:- “4. During the course of hearing, both the petitioners have filed their respective evidence in shape of affidavits. On perusal of the averments in their joint petition and the evidence of the parties, it is found that the petitioner no.1 is the legally married wife of petitioner no.2. Both of them in their joint pleading & respective evidences have admitted the solemnization of marriage on 3rd May, 2022 and that the marriage between them has been broken down irretrievably and the couple desired to get a decree of divorce as they are living separately from each other since 20.05.2022. Both the petitioners have further clarified that after few days of the marriage, the dissension crept in between them on trivial issues and in passage of time it reached to bickers end whereby, they failed to tolerate each other and kept themselves away from staying under the same roof and mess. The petitioner no.1 being examined as P.W.1 has well supported the averments of petition in her affidavit evidence. During cross-examination P.W.1 also admitted that she had already received her gold jewellery & sarees from petitioner Page 4 of 9 no.2 and has no claim from petitioner no.2 P.W.2/the petitioner no.2 has also supported the evidence of P.W.1.” 5. Relying upon the aforementioned observation of the learned Judge, Family Court, Rourkela, Mr. Rout, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the daughter of the complainant herself has admitted that she had no claim left to be received from the present petitioner No.1. In that view of the matter, it is apparently clear that there is no due. Mr. Rout, submits that the case initiated by the opposite party No.2 against the petitioners are, in fact, a frivolous case and only intend to recovery the alleged dues by invoking the criminal law into motion. 6. I have perused the contents of the complaint. The relevant part of the complaint reads as under:- “vi. That, the Accused No.1 with criminal conspiracy misappropriated hard earned money of the Complainant and fraudulently under coercion obtained decree of divorce from the daughter of the Complainant for his wrongful gain putting the Complainant in his wrongful loss with breach of trust. And on 01.12.2023, when the complainant asked the Accused No.1 to refund his hard earned money over phone, he threatened the Complainant with dire consequences and abused him in obscene language saying “Ki paisa mu janini, Puni magile tama samastanku damanjodi ghare asi guli kari mari debi.” 7. It is also emanating from the record that the complainant has transferred the amount on various dates through proper banking channel, Page 5 of 9 which cannot be denied by the petitioners. The complainant has also narrated the said fact in the complaint inter alia stating as under:- “iii) That, prior to solemnization of marriage, of Complainant’s daughter, the Complainant has given the following money through cheque & NEFT. The details of which are mentioned here below for kind perusal of the Hon’ble Court and the Accused persons are liable under law to refund the same to the Complainant. Further more the Complainant has given those money to the Accused No.1 before marriage with his daughter as financial assistance with a condition to return the same to the Complainant. Accordingly, the accused persons are liable to return those money specifically mentioned here below. (a) Paid Rs.4,40,000/- vide Cheque No.514199. Dated 25/04/2022 to the Accused No.1 through RTGS from SBI, Damanjodi Branch. (b) Paid Rs.4,80,000/- vide Cheque No.514198. Dated 25/04/2022 to the Accused No.2 who is the younger brother of the Accused No.1 namely Parveen Kumar through RTGS from SBI, Damanjodi Branch. through RTGS vide Cheque (c) Paid Rs.4,80,000/- from SBI, Damanjodi Branch on dated No.514200 25/04/2022 to the younger sister of the Accused No.1 namely Susma Mahto/Accused No.3 (d) Cash of Rs.6,00,000/- also paid to the Accused No.1 by the Complainant on 28.04.2022. So, in total Rs.20,00,000/- has been paid to the Accused No.1 directly and through his brother/Accused No.2 and sister/Accused No.3 prior to the marriage of Complainant’s daughter with the Accused No.1 and as per the commitment the accused persons are liable to refund the said amount of Rs.20,00,000/- (Rupees Twenty Lakh) to the Complainant.” 8. In the statement under Section 202 Cr.P.C. also the said facts have been reiterated by the complainant two witnesses. The learned S.D.J.M., Page 6 of 9 Koraput by taking into consideration the contents of the complaint as well as the statement under Section 202 Cr.P.C. has taken cognizance of the offences punishable under Sections 420/506/34 of I.P.C. against the petitioners vide its order dated 16.08.2024. 9. The legal position regarding the necessity of judicial application of mind at the stage of cognizance has been well settled by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Mehmood Ul Rehman v. Khazir Mohammad Tunda, reported in (2015) 12 SCC 420, which reads as under: “22. The steps taken by the Magistrate under Section 190(1)(a) CrPC followed by Section 204 CrPC should reflect that the Magistrate has applied his mind to the facts and the statements and he is satisfied that there is ground for proceeding further in the matter by asking the person against whom the violation of law is alleged, to appear before the court. The satisfaction on the ground for proceeding would mean that the facts alleged in the complaint would constitute an offence, and when considered along with the statements recorded, would, prima facie, make the accused answerable before the court. No doubt, no formal order or a speaking order is required to be passed at that stage. The Code of Criminal Procedure requires speaking order to be passed under Section 203 CrPC when the complaint is dismissed and that too the reasons need to be stated only briefly. In other words, the Magistrate is not to act as a post office in taking cognizance of each and every complaint filed before him and issue process as a matter of course. There must be sufficient indication in the order passed by the Magistrate that he is satisfied that the allegations in the complaint constitute an offence and when considered along with the statements recorded and the result of inquiry or report of investigation under Section 202 CrPC, if any, the accused is answerable before the criminal court, there is ground for Page 7 of 9 proceeding against the accused under Section 204 CrPC, by issuing process for appearance. The application of mind is best demonstrated by disclosure of mind on the satisfaction. If there is no such indication in a case where the Magistrate proceeds under Sections 190/204 CrPC, the High Court under Section 482 CrPC is bound to invoke its inherent power in order to prevent abuse of the power of the criminal court. To be called to appear before the criminal court as an accused is serious matter affecting one's dignity, self-respect and image in society. Hence, the process of criminal court shall not be made a weapon of harassment.” 10. Nothing has been placed on record from which it could be ascertained what is the stage of the trial. Even in the petition, except copy of the complaint and related statement, no other documents have been placed whereby the stand taken by the petitioners that they have refunded the money could be elucidated. Hence, the fact remains that the petitioner No.1 before the solemnization of marriage has taken the amount as alleged and when the complainant demanded the money, he has abused and threatened. Therefore, the ingredient of the offence