Allowed

Rajalaxmi Mishra v. State of Orissa

Orissa HC4 Dec 2021CRLMC/2591/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal miscellaneous case, the High Court of Orissa at Cuttack allowed the petitioner's application to quash the criminal proceedings. The court observed that the Informant lodged thereport after the Petitioner suspended the Informant for dereliction of duty, noting no witness support for the Informant's version.

What did the court decide?

The criminal proceeding in G.R. Case No. 771 of 2012 on the file of the S.D.J.M., Bolangir against the Petitioner is quashed and the order of cognizance is set aside.

Rajalaxmi Mishra Vs State of Orissa — Caste Atrocities | Orissa HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

¶2

CRLMC No.2591 of 2015

¶3

Rajalaxmi Mishra

¶4

…. Petitioner

¶5

-versus-

¶6

State of Odisha

¶7

…. Opposite Party

¶8

CORAM: JUSTICE S. PUJAHARI

Order No.

ORDER 04.12.2021

This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.

¶13

This application under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. has been filed

¶14

by the Petitioner with a prayer to quash the order dated 18^th January, 2015 passed by the learned S.D.J.M., Bolangir in G.R. Case No.771 of 2012, taking cognizance of the offence under Section 3(1)(x) of the S.C. & S.T. (PoA) Act.

¶15

Heard the learned counsel for the Petitioner and the learned

¶16

counsel appearing for the State.

¶17

The prosecution allegation reveals that the Petitioner while

¶18

working as a Principal in Rajendra College, Bolangir stated to have installed the idols of Lord Ganesh and Goddess Saraswati and regularly having ‘puja’ of the said idols. But one day, when the Informant, who belongs to Scheduled Caste, cleaned the idols, the Petitioner stated to

¶19

Page 1 of 4

¶20

// 2 //

¶21

have made objection to the said act saying that by his said act the idols have been desecrated and sprinkled the water of river Ganges for sanctification of the idols, so also one P.K. Roul, Reader in Commerce Department stated to have abused him by taking the name of this caste. However, when the Informant asked Sri Roul about the same, he denied to have stated so and stated that it was the present Petitioner who stated the same. But the report was lodged against P.K. Roul, Reader in Commerce Department alleging offence under Section 3(1)(x) of the S.C. & S.T. (PoA) Act, however, at the instance of the Principal, the same was amicably settled and withdrawn. But, when the Informant continued to harass him and also put him on suspension, then the case was registered against the Petitioner by the Informant for the aforesaid incident alleging offence as stated above.

¶22

The materials on record would go to show that admittedly the Informant was the subordinate of the Petitioner and though alleged to have committed the offence, but the first F.I.R. was lodged against P.K. Roul, Reader in Commerce Department alleging the said offence and after withdrawal of the F.I.R., for his dereliction in duty, when he was put under suspension, the Informant stated have lodged the said report alleging the aforesaid offence against the present Petitioner.

¶23

Page 2 of 4

¶24

// 3 //

¶25

Learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that from the aforesaid, it would go to show that the allegation has been made being actuated with mala fide inasmuch as the Petitioner put the Informant under his suspension for dereliction in his duty. The same is fortified from the fact that the allegation was made at a belated stage. In such premises, the allegation being actuated with mala fide, the prosecution is liable to be quashed for the ends of justice.

¶26

Learned counsel for the State, however, submits that since Informant-Victim in this case has alleged the aforesaid, even if other witnesses have not supported his case in any manner and there was delay in lodging the report, the same can hardly be a ground to come to a conclusion that the aforesaid allegation has been made being actuated with malice. Therefore, this Court should not quash the prosecution against the Petitioner.

¶27

However, on consideration of the facts and submissions made,

¶28

especially the fact that the Informant was put under suspension by the Petitioner and thereafter the aforesaid allegations have been made, so also none of the witnesses in any manner supported the version of the Informant and at the first instance for the self-same cause, report having lodged against Mr. P.K. Roul, Reader in Commerce Department, which was withdrawn by the Informant, this Court

¶29

Page 3 of 4

¶30

// 4 //

¶31

reasonably believe that the possibility of the allegation being actuated with malice is not ruled out.

¶32

In such premises, the continuance of the criminal prosecution against the Petitioner, who is a retired Principal, at the belated stage would cause undue harassment to her and shall result in abuse of the process of Court.

¶33

Therefore, for the aforesaid reasons and also for the ends of justice, this Court allows this Criminal Misc. Case and set aside the impugned order of cognizance. Consequently, the proceeding in G.R. Case No.771 of 2012 on the file of the learned S.D.J.M., Bolangir against the Petitioner is hereby quashed. The learned S.D.J.M., Bolangir or the Court in seisin over the matter shall on receipt of this order/production of the certified copy of this order, close the proceeding in the aforesaid case in compliance of this order.

¶34

(S. Pujahari) Judge

¶35

¶36

Page 4 of 4

Rajalaxmi Mishra v. State of Orissa

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajalaxmi Mishra v. State of Orissa

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rabi Jena Vs State of Odisha

Pabitra Nahak Vs State of Odisha

Ganesh Kumar Sahu Vs State of Odisha

Jagannath Bhotra Vs State of Odisha

Sukanta Gouda Vs State of Odisha

Baraju Behera@ Brajabandhu Dehury Vs State of Odisha