The High Court dismissed a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking to quash criminal proceedings for assault and intimidation. The Court held that the criminal allegations constituted an independent cause of action separate from a pending civil suit, and prima facie a case was made out requiring trial.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
CRLMC No.1788 of 2012
Subrat Ranjan Prusti
…. Petitioner Mr. P. Ch. Mohapatra, Advocate
-Versus-
State of Orissa and another
…. Opposite Parties Mr. P.K. Mohanty, ASC
CORAM:
JUSTICE R.K. PATTANAIK
DATE OF JUDGMENT:04.07.2022
I. The petitioner has filed the instant petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. challenging the legality and judicial propriety of the impugned order dated 6th August, 2011 passed in 1CC Case No.501 of 2011 by the learned S.D.J.M. Sadar, Cuttack and also to quash the complaint instituted by O.P.No.2 on the grounds inter alia that it is an outcome of malafide intent in order to harass him, inasmuch as, no prima facie case is made out and that apart, there is a civil dispute pending between the parties for which the criminal action cannot be sustained and moreover, he has been falsely roped for him having acquaintance with accused No.1, the latter being his tenant.
CRLMC No.1788 of 2012 Page 1 of 6
// 2 //
deed vis-à-vis the sold land. In so far as the complaint is concerned, it is in connection with an incident dated 30th May, 2011. The details of the alleged occurrence have been narrated by O.P.No.2 in Annexure-5, particularly, with regard to the mischief committed by the accused persons. After the complaint was filed, the learned court below recorded the initial statement of O.P.No.2 and two of the witnesses during enquiry under Section 202 Cr.P.C. and finally, took cognizance of the alleged offences by order dated 6th August, 2011 vide Annexure-6. The grounds upon which the petitioner challenged the order of cognizance have been stated earlier. The primary contention of the petitioner is that the dispute arises out of a civil dispute between the parties to the alleged sale deed which was sought to be cancelled by O.P.No.2 by filing C.S. No.82 of 2011 and therefore, a criminal action cannot lie and furthermore, he is remotely connected to the alleged dispute and has been implicated since accused No.1 happens to be his tenant. Precisely on the above grounds, the petitioner seeks indulgence of the Court for quashing of the complaint and Annexure-6.
(1992) Supp.1 SCC 335 , the Apex Court had the occasion to examine the scope of inherent power of the High Court in interfering with the investigation by the police and laid down certain guidelines and enunciated that the investigation of an offence is the domain of the police having the power to investigate CRLMC No.1788 of 2012 Page 2 of 6
// 3 //
as per the provisions of Chapter-XII of the Cr.P.C. and the Courts are not justified in obliterating the track of investigation and further observed that if the allegation made in the FIR do not disclose or constitute any cognizable offence or the allegations are so absurd and inherently 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, under such circumstances, inherent power may be exercised. In State of A.P. Vrs. Golconda Linga Swamy and another (2004) 6 SCC 522 , the Supreme Court highlighted upon the circumstances under which jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. could be exercised (a) to give effect to an order under the Cr.P.C., (b) to prevent abuse of process of the Court; and (c) to otherwise secure the ends of justice reiterating the principles delineated in Bhajan Lal case (supra).
CRLMC No.1788 of 2012 Page 3 of 6
// 4 //
No.1 and thereafter, some dispute arose which led to the institution of the suit in C.S. No.82 of 2011 (a copy of the plaint is at Annexure-2) for cancellation of the sale deed with other consequential reliefs. The petitioner is not a party to the sale deed but claims that he has been falsely implicated being the landlord of accused No.1. However, the complaint rests on an incident dated 30th May, 2011 and it has been alleged by O.P.No.2 that while he was proceeding in a cycle, all the accused persons including the petitioner followed him in a car bearing registration No.OR-020016 and restrained him near a temple and in course of events, abused and assaulted him by fist blows and kick but was rescued by the passersby. For the above incident, the complaint is stated to have been filed which happened after filing of the suit in the March, 2011 as revealed from Annexure-4.
CRLMC No.1788 of 2012 Page 4 of 6
// 5 //
the different aspects of overtures of a civil dispute vis-à-vis criminal matters and the need of exercise inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. In fact, the above decision the Apex Court was considering the correctness of its earlier decisions in the case B.S. Joshi : (2003) 4 SCC 675 ; Nikhil Merchant : (2008) 9 SCC 677 ; and Manoj Sharma : (2008) 16 SCC 1 and observed that the power possessed by the High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is of wide amplitude but requires its exercise with great amount of caution and circumspection. In so far the present case is concerned, it is not that O.P.No.2, who is a party to the alleged transaction under Annexure-1 approached the learned court below does not relate to the execution of the sale deed which is sought to be cancelled by filing the civil suit but concerns a specific incident dated 30th May, 2011 during which he was restrained, abused and assaulted by the other accused persons including the petitioner. Admittedly, the complaint has been filed after the suit in C.S. No.82 of 2011 was instituted in the month of March, 2011. It has been alleged by O.P.No.2 in the complaint that the above incident happened since accused No.1, who is the vendee to the sale deed and others committed the mischief with a purpose forcing him to withdraw the case from the court of Civil Judge (S.D.), Khurda. It is an independent cause of action for the filing of the complaint which is not in any way concerning the transaction dated 12th December, 2010. Rather, the allegation is about coercing or threatening O.P.No.2 to withdraw the suit and for having been abused and assaulted on 30th May, 2011. So, therefore, the challenge to the complaint on the ground that it arises out of a civil wrong cannot be sustained. It is reiterated that for the alleged criminal mischief by the accused persons which includes the petitioner, the complaint was filed by O.P.No.2. It is another thing to allege that the complaint was filed with an oblique motive and to harass the petitioner which can only be ascertained during the trial. Having CRLMC No.1788 of 2012 Page 5 of 6
// 6 //
considered the facts of the complaint and taking into account the nature of allegations made therein, it is undeniable that the petitioner is named along with other accused persons including the purchaser under the sale deed. The truthfulness or otherwise of the alleged claim of O.P.No.2 has to be examined by the court below only after receiving evidence and obviously at the end of the trial. Appling the principles enunciated by the Supreme Court in Bhajan Lal case (supra), the Court holds that prima facie, a case is made out against the petitioner, whose involvement even though has not specifically been alleged in the complaint and as already stated, truthfulness or falsity of the allegation is required to be examined during the trial. The other factual grounds raised by the petitioner cannot be considered by the Court at this stage which would be lying within the domain of the trial. Furthermore, though accused No.1 entered his appearance in the suit on 12th August, 2011 but then, it had already been filed prior to the filing of the complaint for a cause of action dated 30th May, 2011. Having considered all the grounds of the petitioner, the Court is not inclined to exercise its inherent jurisdiction as the complaint is clearly maintainable notwithstanding the alleged civil dispute, which, rather, emanates from an independent cause of action.
9. Accordingly, it is ordered.
(R.K. Pattanaik) Judge
TUDU
CRLMC No.1788 of 2012 Page 6 of 6
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court should exercise inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash criminal proceedings arising from allegations of assault and intimidation distinct from a pending civil
Whether the criminal complaint is maintainable despite the existence of a related civil dispute over property rights.
Whether the allegations disclose a cognizable offence sufficient to justify proceeding against the accused.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
State of Haryana and others v. Bhajan Lal and othersExplained¶17
State of Haryana and others Vrs. Bhajan Lal and others (1992) Supp.1 SCC 335 · Who else cites this
State of A.P. v. Golconda Linga Swamy and anotherExplained¶20
State of A.P. Vrs. Golconda Linga Swamy and another (2004) 6 SCC 522 · Who else cites this
Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and anotherExplained¶27
Gian Singh Vrs. State of Punjab and another (2012) 10 SCC 303 · Who else cites this
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Subrat Ranjan Prusti
State of Orissa
R.K. Pattanaik
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
