Manorajan Panda Vs State of Orissa

By means of this application, the Petitioner assails the impugned order dated 20.04.2017, passed by the learned J.M.F.C., Rural, Rourkela in 1CC Case No.18 of 2017, whereupon the learned court took cognizance of the offences implicating the Petitioner in the offences under Sections 294/323/341/327/447/506/34 of the IPC.

¶12

The background facts of the case are that the complainant/Opposite Party No.2 is the son of one Raju Sabat, a domestic consumer, and the brother of a practicing advocate who is conducting the matter on behalf of the complainant before the learned Trial Court. The premises of

¶13

the consumer, Raju Sabat, fall under Sub-Division No. V and were inspected on 30.01.2017 by the Vigilance team under Section 126 of the Electricity Act, 2003. During the inspection, it was found that the meter of the said consumer was running 35% slow and was in a tampered condition, resulting in unauthorised consumption of electricity. Consequently, a provisional assessment order was issued under Section 126(1) of the Electricity Act, 2003, assessing the liability at Rs.16,233/- (Rupees Sixteen Thousand Two Hundred Thirty-Three only). The said order was communicated to the consumer, namely Raju Sabat, through Petitioner No.1, requesting him to appear before the Assessing Officer for personal hearing in order to finalise the assessment.

¶14

The brother of the Petitioner, who is a practicing advocate, appeared before the Assessing Officer on the date fixed. However, without filing any objection, he rebuked and threatened the staff with false implication in a case. In his presence, the matter was deferred to 28.02.2017, and he was requested to file objections on or before that date for the purpose of personal hearing. On the date fixed, neither the consumer filed any objection nor did he participate in the hearing process, as a result of which

¶15

Page 2 of 11

¶16

the provisional assessment order was made final. Subsequently, the consumer appeared and was intimated about the decision taken in the final assessment proceeding, to which he replied that he was no longer interested in filing objections or participating in the hearing. He deposited Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand only) out of the final assessed amount, with an assurance to pay the balance amount within two days in order to settle the issue. the order of final assessment was Accordingly, communicated to him through Petitioner No.1. However, despite receiving the order under Annexure-2 and giving such assurance, the consumer failed to pay the balance amount assessed, for which the power supply to his premises was disconnected on 04.03.2017. Surprisingly, soon after the disconnection, the consumer submitted a representation before the S.D.O., Electrical on 04.03.2017, making bald allegations of illegal demand and requesting re-verification of his meter. He was immediately intimated on the spot that since the power supply had been disconnected for non-payment of the balance penal amount, the meter could not be re-verified unless supply was restored. Accordingly, the consumer deposited the reconnection charges on 04.03.2017, whereafter the power supply was restored.

¶17

Page 3 of 11

¶18

Basing on the representation under Annexure-3, a surprise inspection of the consumer’s premises was undertaken by the vigilance staff on 15.03.2017 in the presence of the consumer for the purpose of re-verification of the meter. During the inspection, it was detected that gum had been pasted on the meter terminal. It was further revealed that, in order to suppress the material fact of tampering, the consumer had deliberately pasted gum on the meter terminal, which was duly detected during the verification.

¶19

Since the consumer could not succeed in his mala fide attempt to justify his innocence and, upon reverification, the allegation stood fortified, the brother of the complainant, who is an advocate and son of the consumer, came to the office at about 6:00 P.M., where he rebuked the staff in filthy language in a loud voice and threatened them to waive the final assessment amount within seven days, failing which he would initiate legal proceedings against them.

¶20

Thereafter, ICC Case No. 18/2017 was registered on 27.03.2017 as a counterblast to the re-verification of the meter under Annexure-4, with the ulterior motive of avoiding disconnection and payment of the final

¶21

Page 4 of 11

¶22

assessment amount. In the said complaint petition, it was alleged that on 28.02.2017, all of a sudden, five persons claiming themselves to be staff of WESCO forcibly entered into the house of the complainant’s father and, in his presence, demanded illegal gratification of Rs.20,000/(Rupees Twenty Thousand only). It was further alleged that since the aged father refused to pay, Petitioner No.1 rebuked him in filthy language and physically assaulted him, causing him to fall to the ground, whereafter the complainant and his mother rescued his injured father. It was further alleged that the petitioners wrongfully confined the complainant/Opposite Party No.2 and his father (the consumer) and continued to demand payment. It was also alleged that upon hearing the commotion from the front room of the house, the complainant’s wife came from the kitchen, protested, and requested the petitioners to leave; however, the petitioners allegedly assaulted both the complainant’s mother and wife in his presence.

¶23

According to the complainant, the wife of the complainant requested the Petitioners to show the disconnection notice for non-payment of dues, whereupon Petitioner No.1 allegedly scolded her in filthy language. It is further alleged that when she demanded a receipt for the

¶24

Page 5 of 11

¶25

payment of the amount, Petitioners No.1 and 4 denied issuing any receipt and threatened her.

¶26

Learned counsel for the Petitioners, during the course of hearing of the application, submitted that none of the allegations made in the complaint against the Petitioners are true, and that the same have been fabricated solely for the purpose of instituting the complaint.

¶27

The Petitioners further submit that since the matter has been amicably settled between the parties, an affidavit signed by both the complainant and the Petitioners has been furnished. The said affidavit discloses that the parties have entered into a compromise by resolving their disputes out of Court. It is mutually agreed between the parties that the consumer, namely Prakash Chandra Sabat, the complainant in 1CC Case No. 18/2017, shall deposit a sum of Rs.8,116/- (Rupees Eight Thousand One Hundred Sixteen only) towards the unauthorised drawal of electrical energy pursuant to the assessment order dated 01.03.2017.

¶28

It is further agreed between the parties that the complainant shall not proceed with 1CC Case No. 18/2017 pending before the learned J.M.F.C., Rural, Rourkela, and that there shall be no further dispute in relation to the distribution license in any manner whatsoever. The

¶29

Page 6 of 11

¶30

complainant has also agreed to take necessary steps for disposal of the cases filed by him.

¶31

It is trite law that the invocation of jurisdiction of the High Court to quash a First Information Report or a criminal proceeding on the ground of settlement between the offender and the victim is distinct from the invocation of jurisdiction for the purpose of compounding an offence. In the case of compounding, the power of the Court is circumscribed by the provisions of Section 320 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, whereas the inherent power of the High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. may be exercised even in respect of non-compoundable offences. However, such inherent power, though wide in its ambit and plenitude, is required to be exercised only:

¶32

(i) to secure the ends of justice; and

¶33

(ii) to prevent abuse of the process of any Court.

¶34

The same has been also reiterated in Parbatbhai Aahir @ Parbatbhai Bhimsinhbhai Karmur and Ors Vs. State of Gujarat and Anr. , reported in AIR 2017 SC 4843 . Held as follows –

¶35

“15. The broad principles which emerge from the precedents on the subject, may be summarised in the following propositions:

¶36

(i) Section 482 preserves the inherent powers of the High Court to prevent an abuse of the process of any court

¶37

Page 7 of 11

¶38

or to secure the ends of justice. The provision does not confer new powers. It only recognises and preserves powers which inhere in the High Court;

¶39

(ii) The invocation of the jurisdiction of the High Court to quash a First Information Report or a criminal proceeding on the ground that a settlement has been arrived at between the offender and the victim is not the same as the invocation of jurisdiction for the purpose of compounding an offence. While compounding an offence, the power of the court is governed by the provisions of Section 320 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The power to quash under Section 482 is attracted even if the offence is non-compoundable.

¶40

(iii) In forming an opinion whether a criminal proceeding or complaint should be quashed in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 482, the High Court must evaluate whether the ends of justice would justify the exercise of the inherent power;

¶41

(iv) While the inherent power of the High Court has a wide ambit and plenitude it has to be exercised; (i) to secure the ends of justice or (ii) to prevent an abuse of the process of any court;

¶42

(v) The decision as to whether a complaint or First Information Report should be quashed on the ground that the offender and victim have settled the dispute, revolves ultimately on the facts and circumstances of each case and no exhaustive elaboration of principles can be formulated;

¶43

(vi) In the exercise of the power under Section 482 and while dealing with a plea that the dispute has been settled, the High Court must have due regard to the nature and gravity of the offence. Heinous and serious offences involving mental depravity or offences such as murder, rape and dacoity cannot appropriately be quashed though the victim or the family of the victim have settled the dispute. Such offences are, truly speaking, not private in nature but

¶44

Page 8 of 11

¶45

have a serious impact upon society. The decision to continue with the trial in such cases is founded on the overriding element of public interest in punishing persons for serious offences;

¶46

(vii) As distinguished from serious offences, there may be criminal cases which have an overwhelming or predominant element of a civil dispute. They stand on a distinct footing in so far as the exercise of the inherent power to quash is concerned;

¶47

(viii) Criminal cases involving offences which arise from commercial, financial, mercantile, partnership or similar transactions with an essentially civil flavour may in appropriate situations fall for quashing where parties have settled the dispute;

¶48

(ix) In such a case, the High Court may quash the criminal proceeding if in view of the compromise between the disputants, the possibility of a conviction is remote and the continuation of a criminal proceeding would cause oppression and prejudice; and

¶49

(x) There is yet an exception to the principle set out in propositions (viii) and (ix) above. Economic offences involving the financial and economic well-being of the state have implications which lie beyond the domain of a mere dispute between private disputants. The High Court would be justified in declining to quash where the offender is involved in an activity akin to a financial or economic fraud or misdemeanour. The consequences of the act complained of upon the financial or economic system will weigh in the balance.”

¶50

Adverting to the facts of the present case, as disclosed from the narration in the complaint, the entire story revolves around the verification of the complainant’s premises by the electricity staff and the consequent detection of unauthorised drawal of electrical energy. The

¶51

Page 9 of 11

¶52

allegations thus do not pertain to any heinous or grave offence involving moral turpitude or an element of public interest, but relate to an act having a predominantly civil flavour arising out of the statutory functions of the electricity authority. In such circumstances, where the dispute is essentially private in nature and has been amicably settled between the parties, the continuation of the criminal proceeding would serve no fruitful purpose and would amount to an abuse of the process of law, squarely attracting the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Parbatbhai Aahir (supra).

¶53

It is apparent from the material at hand, that there are some misunderstandings between both the parties and the complainant while avoiding to obey the statutory demand made by the electricity authority, the action whereof has been initiated pursuant to the due discharge of the official duty has come to an end by way of the settlement as reported by the complainant through the affidavit furnished herein.

¶54

Consequently, in the said affidavit, the complainant has agreed to deposit a sum of Rs.8,116/- (Rupees Eight Thousand One Hundred Sixteen only) towards the unauthorised drawal of electricity as assessed by the

¶55

Page 10 of 11

¶56

concerned officers. This clearly reveals that the complaint registered as 1CC Case No.18 of 2017 was the outcome of anger and misunderstanding, and there remains no justification to continue with such proceeding, particularly when the parties have amicably settled the matter. Permitting the prosecution to continue in such circumstances would amount to an abuse of the process of law, more so when no fruitful result would ensue even if the proceeding were to continue.

¶57

Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances, and in the interest of justice, the criminal proceeding in 1CC Case No.18 of 2017 stands quashed. As a necessary corollary, the CRLMC is allowed.

¶58

(Chittaranjan Dash)

Judge

Sarbani

Page 11 of 11

Signature Not Verified

¶63

Digitally Signed Signed by: SARBANI DASH Designation: Junior Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK Date: 19-Aug-2025 17:39:07

Manorajan Panda v. State of Orissa

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manorajan Panda v. State of Orissa

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

Swarnalata Das Vs State of Odisha

Debi Pr.Bindhani Vs State of Orissa

Kishor Kumar Kshatri Vs State of Odisha

Minaketana Samal Vs State of Orissa

Mousumi Nayak Vs State of Odisha

Amita Karia Vs State of Orissa and Anr.