Sushanta Mohapatra Vs State of Odisha

By means of this application, the Petitioners seek to quash the order dated 08.01.2021 passed by the learned SDJM, Berhampur, Berhampur in 1CC Case No.286 of 2020 arising out of 1CC Case No.388 of 2019 corresponding to GR Case No.1779 of 2019 wherein the learned court took cognizance of the offence under Sections 417/420/34 of the IPC implicating them.

¶15

The background facts of the case are that the InformantOpposite Party No.2, namely Pravash Chandra Mohanty, lodged a written report before Baidyanathpur Police Station, Berhampur, which was registered as Baidyanathpur P.S. Case No.264 of 2019 under Section 294/341/325/500/354/417/420/506/34 of the IPC. Upon registration of the said FIR, investigation was taken up by the

¶16

CRLMC No.1229 of 2021 Page 1 of 9

¶17

police. However, the investigating agency, having found no substance in the allegations, submitted the Final Report attributing the accusations to be based on mistake of fact.

¶18

Subsequently, the Informant-Opposite Party No.2 filed a complaint petition, which was registered as I.C.C. Case No.286 of 2020. The learned court, upon observing the formalities as required under Sections 200 and 202 of the Cr.P.C., took cognizance of the aforementioned offences. Being aggrieved by the order of cognizance, the Petitioners have preferred the present petition challenging the same.

¶19

The Petitioners contend that the impugned order is unsustainable, inter alia, because the Complainant is the elder brother of Petitioner No.1; Petitioner No.2 is his wife; and Petitioner No.3 is a relative of Petitioner No.1. The allegations arise out of a family arrangement wherein Petitioner No.1 is said to have requested the Complainant to purchase a plot of land at Nigam Nagar, under Ankuli Mouza, Berhampur, in the name of his wife (Petitioner No.2), with an assurance that the excess amount spent would be refunded upon his return from work. Acting on this, the Complainant allegedly spent Rs.1,05,000/- towards execution of Sale Deed No.1154 of 2002 in favour of Petitioner No.2.

¶20

It is further alleged that when the Informant-Opposite Party No.2 approached Petitioner No.1 for refund of the said amount of Rs.1,05,000/-, Petitioner No.1 avoided repayment. Thereafter, Petitioner No.1 is said to have suggested that the InformantOpposite Party No.2 sell the said property to a suitable purchaser so that the proceeds of sale could be adjusted towards the alleged dues.

¶21

CRLMC No.1229 of 2021

¶22

Page 2 of 9

¶23

Accordingly, the Informant-Opposite Party No.2 arranged one Manoj Kumar Sahu as a prospective purchaser for the said land covered under RSD No.1154 of 2002, for a total consideration of Rs.13,00,000/-.

¶24

In May 2019, the Informant–Opposite Party No.2 allegedly received an advance of Rs.6,00,000/- towards the proposed sale and handed over possession of the land to the prospective purchaser, who even began construction by laying the foundation. It is then alleged that Petitioner No.1, without informing the Informant, asked Petitioner No.3 to find another buyer. Acting on this, Petitioner No.3 approached the Informant, who, on 28.05.2019, paid him Rs.3,00,000/- (Rs.1,00,000/- in cash and Rs.2,00,000/- by cheque). Petitioner No.1 is further stated to have taken an additional Rs.50,000/- from the Informant. Petitioner No.3 is alleged to have assured that the Sale Deed would be executed by 31.05.2019 in favour of an appropriate purchaser. However, on 10.06.2019, Petitioner No.1 purportedly sent a WhatsApp message directing the Informant not to sell the land to Manoj Kumar Sahu for less than Rs.13,00,000/-, the original consideration. By then, the Informant had already accepted advance money from said purchaser, who allegedly created an unpleasant situation and subjected him to physical and mental harassment.

¶25

It is further alleged that on 12.06.2019, the Petitioners, along with Petitioner No.3, went to the property of the Informant in his absence, intending to cause mischief, but could not do so as he was on duty.

¶26

CRLMC No.1229 of 2021

¶27

Page 3 of 9

¶28

Thereafter, the Petitioners are said to have approached the I.I.C., Baidyanathpur Police Station, and filed a written complaint against the Informant alleging offences under Sections 354 and 307 IPC and allied provisions. Based on this complaint, the police summoned the Informant, where he was allegedly abused, and upon learning of the accusations, he became unconscious and required treatment at MKCG Medical College & Hospital.

¶29

Subsequently, he lodged another report before the I.I.C., Baidyanathpur Police Station, which was treated as a mistake of fact.

¶30

According to the Petitioners, Petitioner No.1, upon learning that a property at Nigam Nagar, Ankuli Mouza, was available for sale, purchased it in the name of his wife (Petitioner No.2) through Sale Deed No.1154 of 2002. Since the vendors were employees in the office of the Informant, he became aware of the transaction. Being interested in buying the same property and having learnt that it stood in the name of Petitioner No.2, he initiated the present proceedings.

¶31

It is, therefore, submitted that the protest petition filed by the Informant-Opposite Party No.2 after submission of the Final Report does not disclose a prima facie case for the offences alleged under Sections 417/420/34 IPC, and that the dispute between the parties is purely of a civil nature which has been given a colour of criminality with mala fide intention to harass the Petitioners.

¶32

Ms. P. Naidu, learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner, inter alia, argued that it is a settled position of law that where the averments, even if taken at their face value, do not constitute a

¶33

CRLMC No.1229 of 2021 Page 4 of 9

¶34

criminal offence, the criminal proceedings are liable to be quashed. She further submitted that the initiation of the present criminal proceeding amounts to an abuse of the process of law, particularly where the dispute is purely of a civil nature and/or where a civil dispute is sought to be given the colour of a criminal one. Referring to the various allegations made in the protest petition, Ms. Naidu submitted that the entire gamut of allegations pertains to a dispute between the brothers regarding the sale and purchase of land, as well as the expenditure incurred towards the registration of land under RSD No.1154 of 2002. She, therefore, contended that the non-refund of money would, in no manner, give rise to a criminal action, and that the Informant-Opposite Party No.2 is at liberty to recover the said amount through appropriate civil proceedings. There is, according to her, neither any element of cheating nor any deception made out from the allegations of the Informant-Opposite Party No.2.

¶35

She further argued that even if the entire allegations are taken at their face value, it would only reveal that the InformantOpposite Party No.2 had agreed to spend money for the execution of the Sale Deed, which was to be refunded by the Petitioner subsequently. The non-refund of the said amount in relation to the Sale Deed bearing No.1154 of 2002 forms the sole basis of the allegation, on which the learned court has taken cognizance. In support of her contention, she placed reliance on the decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of decisions in Anil Mahajan vs. Bhor Industries Limited and Another , reported in (2006) 1 SCC (Cri) 746 , and Rikhab Birani and Another vs. State of Uttar Pradesh , reported in 2025 INSC 512

¶36

CRLMC No.1229 of 2021

¶37

Page 5 of 9

¶38

The Informant-Opposite Party No.2, appearing in person, vehemently supported the impugned order of cognizance. He contended that Petitioner No.1 had deliberately induced him in 2002 to purchase land at Berhampur for Petitioner No.1’s benefit, without ever reimbursing the ₹1,05,000/- spent for the purpose. He further alleged that during the subsequent transaction in 2019, Petitioner No.1 again deceived him by taking ₹3,50,000/- as advance and, in collusion with Petitioner No.3 and certain local real estate agents, fraudulently selling the land by using forged and fabricated documents. He also asserted that the Petitioners, with the intent to harass, lodged an FIR against him under Sections 354 and 307 IPC. Due to the inaction of the police, he approached the learned SDJM, Berhampur, by filing a complaint treated as a protest petition and registered as I.C.C. Case No.388 of 2019, in which cognizance was taken and the Petitioners were summoned. According to him, when queried by this Court, the Petitioners could not establish how the sale consideration for registration of the land in the name of Petitioner No.2 had been paid, which prima facie indicates that the amount was borne by the Informant.

¶39

He further submitted that the protest petition clearly discloses the ingredients of offences under Sections 405 and 415 IPC, and that the learned Magistrate has rightly taken cognizance under Sections 417, 420 and 34 IPC, warranting no interference by this Court.

¶40

The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Paramjeet Batra vs. State of Uttarakhand , reported in (2013) 11 SCC 673 , wherein it was held as follows:

¶41

CRLMC No.1229 of 2021

¶42

Page 6 of 9

¶43

“While exercising its jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code the High Court has to be cautious. This power is to be used sparingly and only for the purpose of preventing abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure ends of justice. Whether a complaint discloses a criminal offence or not depends upon the nature of facts alleged therein. Whether essential ingredients of criminal offence are present or not has to be judged by the High Court. A complaint disclosing civil transactions may also have a criminal texture. But the High Court must see whether a dispute which is essentially of a civil nature is given a cloak of criminal offence. In such a situation, if a civil remedy is available and is, in fact, adopted as has happened in this case, the High Court should not hesitate to quash criminal proceedings to prevent abuse of process of court. ”

¶44

Further in the matter of Rikhab Birani and Another vs. State of Uttar Pradesh , reported in 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 438 , the Hon’ble Apex Court held as follows:

¶45

“During the last couple of months, a number of judgments/orders have been pronounced by this Court, especially in cases arising from the State of Uttar Pradesh, deprecating the stance of the police as well as the courts in failing to distinguish between a civil wrong in the form of a breach of contract, non-payment of money or disregard to and violation of contractual terms; and a criminal offence under Sections 420 and 406 of the IPC, the ingredients of which are quite different and requires mens rea at the time when the contract is entered into itself to not abide by the terms thereof.

¶46

In Lalit Chaturvedi and Others v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Another ,¹ , this Court quoted an earlier decision in Mohammed Ibrahim and Others v. State of Bihar and Another ,² wherein, referring to Section 420 of the IPC, it was observed that the offence under the said Section requires the following ingredients to be satisfied:

¶47

1 2024 SCC Online SC 171

¶48

2 (2009) 8 SCC 751

¶49

CRLMC No.1229 of 2021

¶50

Page 7 of 9

¶51

“18. Let us now examine whether the ingredients of an offence of cheating are made out. The essential ingredients of the offence of “cheating” are as follows:

¶52

(i) deception of a person either by making a false or misleading representation or by dishonest concealment or by any other act or omission;

¶53

(ii) fraudulent or dishonest inducement of that person to either deliver any property or to consent to the retention thereof by any person or to intentionally induce that person so deceived to do or omit to do anything which he would not do or omit if he were not so deceived; and

¶54

(iii) such act or omission causing or is likely to cause damage or harm to that person in body, mind. reputation or property.”

¶55

Upon examination of the entire set of allegations emerging from the case record, it appears that Petitioner No.1 and the Informant-Opposite Party No.2, being brothers, had entered into a transaction relating to the sale and purchase of land with the understanding that the land would be purchased by Petitioner No.1, for which the Informant-Opposite Party No.2 would initially incur the expenses, which Petitioner No.1 would subsequently reimburse.

¶56

From the allegations made by the Informant-Opposite Party No.2, it transpires that Petitioner No.1 failed to fulfil his commitment to repay the amount of ₹1,05,000/-, allegedly spent by the Informant-Opposite Party No.2 towards the purchase of land registered in the name of Petitioner No.1’s wife under RSD No.1154 of 2002.

¶57

It is further alleged by the Informant-Opposite Party No.2 that, in order to discharge the liability of the aforesaid amount of ₹1,05,000/-, both brothers had agreed to sell another property;

¶58

CRLMC No.1229 of 2021

¶59

Page 8 of 9

¶60

however, due to certain differences that arose between them, and with the intervention of Petitioner No.3 and one Manoj Kumar Sahu, the said transaction could not be materialized. During the said process, the Informant-Opposite Party No.2 had received an advance amount of ₹6,00,000/-, out of which he paid ₹3,00,000/- to Petitioner No.3 and ₹50,000/- to Petitioner No.1.

¶61

These very averments made by the Informant-Opposite Party No.2 clearly indicates that he himself was an active participant in the transaction in question. The issues regarding refund or non-refund of money and the receipt of advance amounts are essentially matters of civil dispute, which can only be established through evidence during trial. There appears no material suggesting any element of criminality in the aforesaid allegations.

¶62

In view of the foregoing discussion, the cognizance taken by the learned court on the basis of the allegations made in the protest petition does not appear to be in consonance with the settled position of law and the facts of the case.

¶63

Accordingly, the impugned order dated 08.01.2021 passed by the learned SDJM, Berhampur, Berhampur in 1CC Case No.286 of 2020 arising out of 1CC Case No.388 of 2019 corresponding to GR Case No.1779 of 2019 suffers from legal infirmity and is hereby quashed.

¶64

The CRLMC stands disposed of accordingly.

¶65

Signature Not Verified (Chittaranjan Dash) Digitally Signed Judge Signed by: ANANTA KUMAR PRADHAN Designation: Sr. Stenographer AKPradhan Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA Date: 20-Oct-2025 12:08:48

¶66

CRLMC No.1229 of 2021

¶67

Page 9 of 9

Sushanta Mohapatra v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sushanta Mohapatra v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S.Bhanja Prava Vs State

M/S.S.S.Enterprisers Vs State

Jagannath Sahoo Vs State of Odisha

Satya Priya Jayasingh Vs State of Odisha(Eow)

Rakesh Ratan Nath Vs Depanjali Nayak

Himansu Barik Vs State of Odisha