The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK CRLMC No.3644 of 2022 Malati Parida …. Petitioner Mr. B. Mohanty, Advocate -versus- State of Odisha and another …. Opp. Parties
Legal Reasoning
Mr. A. K. Apat, Addl. P. P. For O.P. No.1 CORAM: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE CHITTARANJAN DASH Order No.
Decision
ORDER 04.08.2025 12. 1. Heard learned counsel for the Parties. 2. By means of this application, the Petitioner seeks to challenge the order of cognizance dated 05.11.2020 passed by the learned SDJM, Panposh, Rourkela in connection with FIR No.71 of 2018 of Chhend PS, Rourkela correspond to GR Case No.1059 of 2018 in ICC Case No.178 of 2018. 3. The background facts of the case are that the Petitioner is the widowed mother of the complainant in 1CC Case No. 178 of 2018, arising out of FIR No. 71 of 2018. Cognizance in the said case has been taken solely against the Petitioner, pursuant to the charge sheet filed by the police in PS Case No. 71 of 2018. The Petitioner, aged about 85 years, is the widow of late Dambarudhar Parida. The couple had four sons and a daughter. The complainant, who is her second son, filed Civil Suit No. 5 of 2018 before the Civil Judge, Rourkela, seeking partition of joint family property. In the said suit, the Petitioner was arrayed as Defendant No. 1 and her other children were made Defendants No. 2 to 5. According to the complainant, the property originally recorded in the name of his deceased father was illegally transferred to the Petitioner without his consent by impersonating him and affixing a forged signature purporting to show his no-objection. The property in question had been allotted by the Rourkela Development Authority. Based on these allegations, the complainant lodged an FIR, and following investigation, the police submitted a charge sheet implicating the Petitioner alone. 4. Mr. Mohanty, learned counsel for the Petitioner submitted, inter alia, that the impugned order is not in accordance with the material on record. It was contended that the Petitioner, being an elderly widow of considerable age, has been falsely implicated in the case. The counsel further argued that the complainant had already received Page 2 of 6 his share in the family property, and the allegation of fraud is an afterthought, brought in only to exert pressure and to gain control over the remaining property. It was also submitted that the claim regarding payment of money in lieu of the property transferred to the widow-mother is a matter of record and would need to be established during trial. However, the Petitioner failed to substantiate these grounds in the application challenging the cognizance order. No other material was placed on record to prima facie establish that the cognizance had been taken without sufficient basis. 5. Mr. Apat, learned Additional Standing Counsel for the State, submitted that the impugned order taking cognizance is well within the parameters of law and based on sufficient materials collected during the course of investigation. The police, after due inquiry, found a prima facie case against the Petitioner, and the charge sheet was submitted accordingly. The allegations regarding impersonation and use of forged signatures to facilitate the transfer of property in the name of the Petitioner constitute serious offences and warranted judicial scrutiny. At the stage of cognizance, a detailed evaluation of evidence is neither required nor permissible; it is sufficient that the materials disclose commission of an offence. The trial Page 3 of 6 court, having applied its judicial mind, rightly took cognizance, and no interference is called for at this preliminary stage. 6. The Hon’ble Apex Court in its decision in the matter of State of Haryana and Ors. vs. Ch. Bhajanlal and Ors. reported in 1992 Supp(1) SCC 335, has laid down the following guidelines: - “(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 inherently complaint are so absurd and Page 4 of 6 improbable on the basis of which no 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 criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and 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. (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.” In view of the principles laid down in State of 7. Haryana vs. Bhajan Lal, (Supra), this Court, while exercising its inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC, must exercise restraint and interfere only in rarest of rare cases where the allegations in the FIR or the charge sheet, even if taken at face value, do not disclose the commission of any offence or where the proceedings are manifestly attended with mala fide or malicious intent. In the present case, the allegations, as supported by the charge sheet and materials on record, do not appear to be inherently improbable or wholly absurd. The factual disputes raised by the Petitioner, including claims of forgery and Page 5 of 6 fraudulent transfer, require adjudication during trial and cannot be summarily decided at this stage. 8. Accordingly, this Court finds no ground to invoke its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C., and the present CRLMC stands dismissed. Judge (Chittaranjan Dash) AKPradhan Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: ANANTA KUMAR PRADHAN Designation: Sr. Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA Date: 06-Aug-2025 15:35:21 Page 6 of 6