(An application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India) v. State of Orissa

: Mr. Sarathi Jyoti Mohanty, Additional Standing Counsel (For Opposite Party No.1) None (For Opposite Party No.2) CORAM: THE HON’BLE MISS JUSTICE SAVITRI RATHO JUDGMENT Dates of hearing and Judgment : 06.02.2026 Savitri Ratho, J. This CRLMC has been filed with a prayer to quash the criminal proceeding pending in the Court of learned SDJM, Sadar, Sambalpur in GR Case No.3769 of 2019 which arises out of Burla P.S. Case No.484 of 2019 and order dated 24.08.2023 passed by the learned JMFC (I) (C.T.), Sambalpur. BRIEF FACT

2. The Petitioner is facing trial in a case where charge-sheet dated 10.06.2020 has been submitted against him for commission the offences punishable under Sections 500/507/294 of the Indian Penal Code (in short, the IPC). Cognizance of the offences had been taken by the learned SDJM, Sambalpur by order dated 02.11.2020. This order had been challenged by the Petitioner in CRLMC No.1691 of 2020 in this Court and the same had been disposed of on

02.05.2023 permitting the Petitioner to raise all the pleas urged in the petition before the learned trial Court at the appropriate stage. It appears that thereafter the Petitioner filed an application for discharge which was partly allowed by the learned JMFC (I) (C.T.), Sambalpur on 24.08.2023 by discharging the Petitioner from the offences under Sections 294 and 507 of the IPC and holding that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the Petitioner for commission of offence punishable under Section 500 of the IPC. CRLMC No.5466 of 2023 SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER

3. Mr. Surendra Mohanty, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the allegation made by the informant relates to circulation of alleged defamatory emails. Such allegation even if assumed to be true, attract the offence under section 500 IPC, which is admittedly a non-cognizable offence and section 155 (2) of the Cr.P.C mandates that no investigation can be conducted against the accused in an offence that is non-cognizable without express permission of the learned Magistrate. Therefore, the Investigating Officer in order to bypass the said legal restriction as enshrined under Section 155(2) CrPC, deliberately and purposely added cognizable offence under sections 294 as well as offence under Section 507 IPC and registered the FIR, even though the original FIR by the complainant only mentioned alleged offence under section 500 of IPC, which is a non-cognizable offence. Referring to Section 199(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, he submits that the learned Court below could not have taken cognizance of an offence punishable under Chapter XXI of the IPC. Cognizance could be taken only on the basis of the complaint of the person aggrieved. His submission is that as Section 500 as well as Section 507 are included in Chapter XXI of the Indian Penal Code, and as the CRLMC No.5466 of 2023 learned Court below has already held that the offence under Sections 294 and 507 of the IPC is not made out against the Petitioner, the trial Court is proceeding against him for the offence under Section 500 of the IPC only, for which the proceeding against the Petitioner should be quashed. He also submits that having been exonerated in the departmental proceedings for the same allegation, the criminal case cannot proceed on the same allegation against the Petitioner. He submits that in the meanwhile three witnesses have been examined by the prosecution and the petitioner has also cross examined them but as the proceedings is not maintainable, it should be quashed. He relies on the decision in the case of Dr. Minakelana Pani Vrs State of Odisha, reported in 2022 (11) OLR-104. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF STATE

4. Mr. S. J. Mohanty, learned Additional Standing Counsel submits that the petitioner had earlier approached this Court in CRLMC No. 1691 of 2020, which has been disposed of by this Court without interfering with the order taking cognizance, permitting the petitioner to raise all pleas, urged in the present petition before the learned trial Court at the appropriate stage and submits that it has not been stated that this plea was raised in the discharge petition. The application filed for discharge in the Court CRLMC No.5466 of 2023 below has also not been annexed to this petition nor does the rejection order reveal that the contention that proceeding under Sections 500 IPC is not maintainable against the Petitioner on the basis of an FIR, had been raised before the learned trial Court. He also submits that it is a technical plea as no prejudice is caused to the Petitioner.

5. He submits that in view of the admitted position that charge in the meanwhile has been framed against the Petitioner under Section 500 of the IPC and three witnesses have been examined and it being a settled position of law that once charge has been framed and witnesses have been examined, the accused cannot be discharged, the CRLMC should be dismissed. He further submits that in view of the provision of Section 155(4) of the Cr.P.C., the FIR has been rightly registered as Section 294 of the IPC is a cognizable offence. Cognizance of offences under Section 294 of the IPC, which is a cognizable offence, had also been taken along with offences under Sections 500 and 507 of the IPC. So there is no reason as to why the proceeding should be quashed, especially when no prejudice has been claimed by the Petitioner.

6. He also submits that the decision of this Court in the case of Dr. Minaketana Pani v. State of Odisha, reported in 2022 (II) CRLMC No.5466 of 2023 OLR-104, no longer holds good in view of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Karnataka Lokayuktta v. Chandrasekhar and another : 2026 INSC 31 where this Court has held that enquiry report in a disciplinary proceeding is not conclusive of the criminal liability of the delinquent and cannot by itself be a ground to quash criminal proceedings.

7. Notice had been issued to the Opposite Party No.2 but in spite of valid service of notice, no counsel has appeared on his behalf. STATUTORY PROVISION

8. Section 155 and Section 199 of Cr.P.C. are extracted below; Section 155 – Information as to non-cognizable cases and investigation of such cases.— “(1) When information is given to an officer in charge of a police station of the commission within the limits of such station of a non-cognizable offence, he shall enter or cause to be entered the substance of the information in a book to be kept by such officer in such form as the State Government may prescribe in this behalf, and refer the informant to the Magistrate. (2) No police officer shall investigate a non- cognizable case without the order of a Magistrate having power to try such case or commit the case for trial. (3) Any police officer receiving such order may the same powers in respect of exercise CRLMC No.5466 of 2023 investigation (except the power to arrest without warrant) as an officer in charge of a police station may exercise in a cognizable case. (4) Where a case relates to two or more offences of which at least one is cognizable, the case shall be deemed to be a cognizable case, notwithstanding that the other offences are non-cognizable.” Sec 199- Prosecution for defamation- person “(1) No Court shall take cognizance of an offence punishable under Chapter XXI of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860) except upon a complaint made by theoffence; aggrieved Provided that where such person is under the age of eighteen years, or is an idiot or a lunatic, or is from sickness or infirmity unable to make a complaint, or is a woman who, according to the local customs and manners, ought not to be compelled to appear in public, some other person may, with the leave of the Court, make a complaint on his or her behalf. (2) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Code, when any offence falling under Chapter XXI of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860) is alleged to have been committed against a person who, at the time of such commission, is the President of India, the Vice- President of India, the Government of a State, the Administrator of a Union territory or a Minister of the Union or of a State or of a Union territory, or any other public servant employed in connection with the affairs of the Union or of a State in respect of his conduct in the discharge of his public functions a Court of Session may take cognizance of such offence, without the case being committed to it, upon a complaint in writing made by the Public Prosecutor. CRLMC No.5466 of 2023 (3) Every complaint referred to in Sub-Section (2) shall set forth the facts which constitute the offence alleged, the nature of such offence and such other particulars as are reasonably sufficient to give notice to the accused of the offence alleged to have been committed by him. (4) No complaint under Sub-Section (2) shall be made by the Public Prosecutor except with the previous sanction. (a) of the State Government, in the case of a person who is or has been the Governor of that State or a Minister of that Government; (b)of the State Government, in the case of any other public servant employed in connection with the affairs of the State; (c)of the Central Government, in any other case. (5) No Court of Session shall take cognizance of an offence under Sub-Section (2) unless the complaint is made within six months from the date on which the offence is alleged to have been committed. (6) Nothing in this section shall affect the right of the person against whom the offence is alleged to have been committed, to make a complaint in respect of that offence before a Magistrate having jurisdiction or the power of such Magistrate to take cognizance of complaint. offence ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSION

9. In view of the admitted position that after framing of charge three witnesses have been examined and cross-examined by the Petitioner, I am not inclined to entertain this CRLMC. I am also CRLMC No.5466 of 2023 not inclined to discuss the submissions of the learned counsel and give any finding, lest it prejudice the Petitioner or the prosecution during trial

10. As this Court had earlier permitted the Petitioner to raise all his grounds at the appropriate stage, if the trial in the case is still pending, it is open to the Petitioner to raise all contentions during argument before the trial Court. It goes without saying that the learned trial Court shall consider his contentions in accordance with law.

11. With the above observations, the CRLMC is disposed of. (Savitri Ratho) Judge Orissa High Court, Cuttack Dated, the 6th February, 2026/RKS Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: RANJAN KUMAR SETHI Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT Date: 10-Feb-2026 20:41:56 CRLMC No.5466 of 2023