High High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTAC TTACK CRLMC No. 3643 of 2022 Haladhar Behera ehera & others …. Petitioners P Mr. K.K. Rout Rout, Advocate -versus- State of Odisha a ha and another …. Opposi posite Parties Mr. A.K. Apat, A , Addl. P. P. CORAM: THE HON’BLE BLE MR. JUSTICE CHITTARANJAN JAN DASH Date of Judgment: 08.12.2025 Chittaranjan Dash, ash, J. 1. By means eans of this application, the Petitioners see seek to quash the order of cogni cognizance passed by the learned J.M.F.C. .F.C., Aul dated 02.05.2022 in G.R in G.R. Case No.646 of 2021 arising out of out of Rajkanika P.S. Case No.364 364 of 2021. 2. The backg
Facts
background facts of the case, in brief, are th are that Opposite Party No.2 lodged lodged a written report before the Rajkan Rajkanika Police Station alleging th ing that, while she was proceeding to the c o the college, the present Petitioners tioners obstructed her from entering the cam he campus on the ground that her t her relieving order had already be y been issued, notwithstanding th ing that her transfer order had, in the mean e meantime, been quashed. She furt e further alleged that Petitioner No.1 ha o.1 had assumed charge as Principa rincipal-in-Charge of Olaver College and th and that her life was being threate threatened. On the basis of the report, eport, the police registered Rajkani ajkanika P.S. Case No. 364 of 2021 unde under Sections CRLMC No.3643 of of 2022 Page 1 of 4 341/294/34 of IPC of IPC corresponding to G.R. Case No.64 No.646 of 2021. After the investiga vestigation, the police submitted the Charge Charge-Sheet and the learned trial trial court took cognizance of the offen offences under Sections 341/294/3 /294/34 of IPC. 3.
Legal Reasoning
, it prima facie appears that when Opposite posite Party No.2 was entering the c he college, the Petitioners obstructed her ted her entry and allegedly used obs ed obscene words against her. Whether the er the ingredients of the offences und es under Sections 341 and 294 IPC are ultim e ultimately made out is a matter to b er to be determined on the basis of evidence dence at trial, and this Court, in exer n exercise of jurisdiction under Section 482 n 482 Cr.P.C., is not expected to un to undertake a meticulous examination or a n or appreciation of the materials so ials so as to test their evidentiary worth. In th. In view of the settled legal positi position that the power to quash criminal p inal proceedings is to be exercised rcised sparingly and only in exceptional circ al circumstances, there is no grou ground made out to interfere with the ith the order of cognizance passed passed by the learned court below. 6. In the mat e matter of Kaptan Singh vs. State of Utta Uttar Pradesh, LL 2021 SC 379 379, the Supreme Court has reiterated the fo the following: “9.2 In th (Supra) afte Bhajan La exercise of the proceed further obse In the case of Dhruvaram Murlidhar S ra) after considering the decisions of this Cou n Lal (Supra), it is held by this Court ise of powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to q roceedings is an exception and not a rule. er observed that inherent jurisdiction under Se ar Sonar is Court in Court that C. to quash rule. It is der Section CRLMC No.3643 of of 2022 Page 3 of 4 482 Cr.P.C carefully an justified by It is furthe not permiss in exercise view has b Arvind Kha case of XYZ Cr.P.C. though wide is to be exercised spari ully and with caution, only when such exerc ied by tests specifically laid down in section i further observed that appreciation of eviden ermissible at the stage of quashing of procee ercise of powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. Si has been expressed by this Court in the ca Khanna (Supra), Managipet (Supra) and i XYZ (Supra), referred to hereinabove.” sparingly, exercise is ction itself. evidence is proceedings .C. Similar the case of ) and in the 7. Applying lying the aforesaid principle to the presen present case, the contention regardi egarding delay in lodging the FIR is also a m lso a matter to be tested during trial, g trial, and does not vitiate the cognizance ta ance taken by the learned Magistrate gistrate. In view of the above, the Petitio Petitioners are at liberty to seek dis ek discharge at the appropriate stage and e and to raise all permissible pleas pleas during the trial. In the absence of a e of any ground warranting interfe interference, and there being material terial on record indicating a prima prima facie case, this Court finds no reaso reason to quash the order impugne pugned. 8. According ordingly, the CRLMC stands dismissed. Bijay (Chittaranjan Das Judge Dash) Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BIJAY KETAN SAHOO Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA Date: 09-Dec-2025 10:20:07 CRLMC No.3643 of of 2022 Page 4 of 4
Arguments
Mr. Rout, Rout, learned counsel for the Petitioners, in ers, in course of the hearing in the in the application, inter alia, submitted that d that the alleged incident occurred urred on 18.03.2021, whereas the FIR has b has been lodged on 02.11.2021 i.e 21 i.e. after eight months of the occurren currence without explaining the ca the cause of delay. It is further submitte bmitted that the narration made in ade in the complaint so also from the statem statement of the witnesses recorded corded in course of the investigation, there there appears no material to constitu onstitute the offences under Section 341/294 41/294/34 of IPC. Nothing has been been stated to the effect that the act of obs of obscene words used cause annoy annoyance to the Complainant in public. T blic. The learned counsel further sub her submitted that the learned court below di low did not apply his judicial mind mind before taking cognizance into the to the aforesaid offences and as su such, the order of cognizance is deserve eserved to be set shed. aside or quashed. 4. Mr. Apat, Apat, learned Addl. P. P., on the other hand r hand, submitted that the narration m ation made in the complaint as well as the s s the statement of the witnesses in co s in course of the investigation clearly sugge ggests that the Opposite Party N rty No.2 while was entering the college, llege, which she continued to visit visit was obstructed by the Petitioners, th , thereby, the Petitioners are ame re amenable to the offence under Section 34 ion 341 of IPC as far as the obscene bscene abuse and causing annoyance to th to the Opposite Party No.2 is conc is concerned, it is submitted by the learned arned counsel for the State that the e t the evidence is inevitable in the case to ens to ensure, if such CRLMC No.3643 of of 2022 Page 2 of 4 annoyance was cau as caused to the victim or not and the matte matter cannot be decided at the thre e threshold that the abuse or the obscene wo ne word used did not cause any anno y annoyance to the Opposite Party No.2. Sim . Similarly, the action of the Peti e Petitioners, being in furtherance of the of their common intentions, which i hich is apparent on the face of record, it can , it cannot be said that the aforesaid esaid offences are not made out to procee proceed with the trial. 5. Upon peru n perusal of the narration made in the n the complaint, coupled with the th the statements of the witnesses record recorded during investigation, it pr