Vis-a-vis an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash proceedings for forgery and cheating, the Orissa High Court deemed the allegations prima facie sufficient. The Court held that the petitioner's limited role claim was a matter for 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.
ORISSA HIGH COURT: CUTTACK
CRLMC No.609 of 2017
In the matter of application under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973.
Dillip Kumar Sahoo ..… Petitioner
-Versus-
State of Orissa ….. Opp. Party
For Petitioner : Mr. B. Nayak, Advocate
For Opp. Party : Mr. S.R. Roul, A.S.C.
P R E S E N T:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G. SATAPATHY
Date of hearing:08.02.2023, Date of judgment:14.03.2023
G.SATAPATHY, J. The Petitioner by way of this application
U/S. 482 Cr.P.C. seeks to quash the order passed on
15.04.2013 by learned J.M.F.C., Jajpur Road in G.R.
Case No.748 of 2012 taking cognizance of offences U/Ss. 466/467/468/471/419/34 of IPC and issuance of
process as well as the entire criminal proceeding initiated against him.
// 2 //
Sukinda P.S. in the course of patrolling detained one truck bearing registration No.OR-09-F-4099 loaded with Coal along with its driver who could not produce any authority in support of such transportation of coal. Accordingly, the truck was seized for illegal transportation of coal for violation of Rule-12 of O.M. Rules, 2007 and Sukinda P.S. Case No.39 dated 31.03.2012 corresponding to G.R. Case No.343/12 was registered. On verification of the documents, it was found that the aforesaid truck belonged to Shri. Bharat Kishore Sahoo of Brahmanipal who produced the certified copy of the order passed on 31.07.2012 in W.P.(C) No. 17813 of 2012 in the Mining Office on 03.08.2012 for release of the said truck, but unfortunately the aforesaid order was found to be forged inasmuch as neither any writ bearing such number was filed nor was any order passed thereon. On the aforesaid substance of fact, the Deputy Director Mines, Jajpur Road lodged an FIR before IIC, Jajpur Road on
// 3 //
10.08.2012 against the Petitioner and others, which paved for the registration of Jajpur Road P.S. Case No. 253 dated 10.08.2012 resulting in commencement of investigation and submission of charge-sheet against the Petitioner and others for offences punishable U/Ss. 466/467/468/471/419/34 of IPC under which the learned J.M.F.C., Jajpur Road took cognizance of offence and issued process against the petitioner and others. On aforesaid background of facts, the petitioner has approached this Court in an application U/S. 482 Cr.P.C. for the relief indicated in the preceding paragraph.
Nayak, learned counsel for the petitioner submits by placing the facts of the case that the present petitioner
is not concerned with the forging of the order of this Court and the limited role attributed against the petitioner, is to the effect that he had introduced the accused Bharat Kishore Sahoo to the conducting counsel and except this allegation, there is nothing on record to hold that the present petitioner is criminally liable for
// 4 //
any offence and even with the aid of Sec. 34 of IPC and, thereby, the present criminal proceeding being an abuse of process of Court, may kindly be quashed.
// 5 //
the custody of Mining Officer, of course, the petitioner pleads his innocence for not a party to the forgery. The name of the petitioner does not find place in the FIR, but after investigation, the police has submitted chargesheet against the petitioner for liaisoning with coaccused persons and committing forgery. It is of course advanced on behalf of the Petitioner that the Petitioner has no role in forging the document and the limited role attributed against the petitioner is to the affect that he had introduced the principal accused Bharat Kishore Sahoo to the conducting counsel, but the Petitioner could not show as to why he has been implicated falsely in this case by the Investigating Agency. It is not the case of the petitioner that the ingredient of offence is not made out, but it is his limited grievance that he has no role to play in the commission of forgery. The petitioner has never disputed/denied about the allegation of forgery made against co-accused persons nor was he able to dislodge the alleged criminal liability against him. In this case the police after conducting an
// 6 //
investigation has submitted charge-sheet against the petitioner and others for committing forgery with aid of Sec. 34 of IPC which speaks of joint criminal liability in furtherance of their common intention. It is undoubtedly advanced for the Petitioner that he has only introduced the principal accused with co-accused, but his contention in the circumstance appears to be a question of fact and subject to appreciation in the course of trial. Further the petitioner could not clarify as to why he has been falsely implicated in this case or what was the circumstance of transaction by which he has been roped in this case without any material.
sheet against the petitioner and his alleged role in avoiding the police in the course of investigation, this Court does not find any justification to quash the criminal proceeding initiated against the petitioner. Besides, the matters on record disclose prima facie ingredient of forgery and cheating and, thereby, the
// 7 //
order taking cognizance of offences by the learned J.M.F.C. Jajpur Road cannot be faulted with.
…………….…………..
G.SATAPATHY,
JUDGE
Orissa High Court, Cuttack
The 14 th March, 2023, Priyajit
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the criminal proceedings initiated against the petitioner for offences of forgery and cheating under the Indian Penal Code should be quashed under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code.
Whether the petitioner has a prima facie case of innocence or if the allegations of forgery and joint criminal intention under Section 34 of IPC are sufficient to sustain the proceedings.
Whether the taking of cognizance by the Judicial Magistrate and issuance of process warrants quashing as an abuse of the process of the court.
3 provisions across 2 enactments
Dillip Kumar Sahoo
State of Orissa
G. SATAPATHY
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
