Dismissed

Dr.Kulamani Barik v. Sadananda Padhihary

Orissa HC9 Mar 2021CRLMC/809/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking to quash an order taking cognizance of offences under Sections 294, 506, and 420 IPC, the High Court noted that at the cognizance stage, sufficiency of evidence or defence is irrelevant. Rejecting the petitioner's plea that the proceeding was an abuse of process, the Court found the prima facie case established and dismissed the petition.

What the court decided

AI extract

Dr.Kulamani Barik Vs Sadananda Padhihary — Quashing and FIR | Orissa HC (2021)

¶1

CORAM :- HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE S.PUJAHARI

¶2

CRLMC NO.809 OF 2009

Dr. Kulamani Barik.

…….. Petitioner

-Versus-

Sadananda Padhihary.

…….. Opp.party

O R D E R

09.03.2021

¶10

The petitioner seeks to invoke the inherent power of this Court under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. for quashment of the order dated 27.08.2008 passed by the learned J.M.F.C., Jajpur Road in I.C.C. No.215 of 2007 taking cognizance of offences under Sections 294, 506 and 420 of I.P.C. against him.

¶11

2. Heard the learned counsel for both the parties and perused the impugned order vis-à-vis the relevant papers on record.

¶12

3. It is alleged that due to wrong and defective medical treatment including surgical operation rendered by the petitioner-doctor at his private clinic, the health condition of the wife of the complainant-opposite party got deteriorated, for

¶13

¶14

which she underwent further treatment under some other doctors at Cuttack by incurring huge expenses, and that although the petitioner-doctor had assured to bear the medical expenses of the wife of the complainant-opposite party, he, ultimately, cheated the complainant by not rendering financial assistance or any other help. Pursuant to a report lodged by the opposite party, Jajpur Road police registered a case against the petitioner under Sections 294/506 of IPC and after completion of investigation, submitted final report. Thereafter, in a protest against the said final report, the opposite party filed a complaint before the learned J.M.F.C., Jajpur Road which was registered as I.C.C. No.215 of 2007. The learned Magistrate, thereupon, recorded initial statement of the opposite party-complainant followed by an enquiry under Section 202 of Cr.P.C., in course of which, three witnesses were examined including the wife of the opposite party. Considering the materials so placed, the learned J.M.F.C., Jajpur Road took cognizance of offences under Sections

¶15

¶16

294/506/420 of IPC against the accused-petitioner vide the impugned order dated 27.08.2008.

¶17

4. It is the contention of the petitioner that the police having already submitted a final report after conducting a full-dressed investigation, the learned Magistrate ought not have allowed initiation of the proceeding by taking cognizance of the offences merely on the basis of the allegations brought by the complainant bereft of any documentary proof. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that continuance of the proceeding pursuant to the erroneous order of the learned J.M.F.C., Jajpur Road would amount to sheer abuse of the process of the Court and hence the same needs to be quashed. According to him, the prosecution has been falsely foisted to harass the petitioner-doctor.

¶18

5. It is, however, the submission of the learned counsel appearing for the complainant-opposite party that the learned Magistrate having passed the impugned order on the basis of the materials placed under Sections 200 and 202 of Cr.P.C., and

¶19

¶20

production of any documentary evidence at this stage being not a sine-qua-non for showing existence of a prima-facie case, the contention of the petitioner needs to be ignored. According to him, the statements of the complainant and his wife besides the corroborating materials produced before the learned J.M.F.C., Jajpur Road make out a strong prima-facie case to proceed against the petitioner, and at the threshold of the proceeding, exercise of power of this Court under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. may not be warranted.

¶21

6. Needless to mention that at the stage of taking cognizance, it is not a requisite for the Magistrate to search for evidence sufficient to convict the accused for the offence(s) alleged. A bare perusal of the materials placed by the complainant before the learned J.M.F.C. would show that there is a primafacie case to proceed against the petitioner-accused. At this stage, there is no occasion to take into consideration any probable defence plea of the accused or make any threadbare analysis of the pros

¶22

¶23

and cons of the prosecution case. The Apex Court in the case of State of Haryana and others vrs. Ch.

¶24

Bhajan Lal and others , reported in 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335, has laid down the principles for invoking the power of this Court under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. to interfere with an order of cognizance or launching of prosecution. This Court does not find the present to be a fit case to be brought within the purview of the said reported case. Hence, this CRLMC is found to be of no merit

¶25

7. In the result, this CRLMC being devoid of merit stands dismissed.

¶26

L.C.R. received along with a copy of this order

¶27

be sent back forthwith.

¶28

……………………… S.Pujahari, J.

¶29

MRS

¶30

¶31

Dr.Kulamani Barik v. Sadananda Padhihary

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Dr.Kulamani Barik v. Sadananda Padhihary

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Bijaya Ku.Dey Vs State

Sachhab Kanta Vatra Vs State of Odisha

Ashok Kumar Agarwal Vs NHAI

Pravakar Sahoo Vs State of Orissa

Rabindra Rout Vs State

Suresh Tarai Vs State of Odisha