Satya Priya Jayasingh Vs State of Odisha(Eow)

By mea n s of this application the Petitioner seeks to quash the FIR under A nnexure-1 in connection with EO W P.S. Case No.02 of 2023 p ending before the learned S.D.J.M., B hubaneswar in C.T. Case No. 4 2 of 2023.

¶17

The bac k ground facts of the case are that one Ajay Kumar Agarwal lodged a report alleging that the Petitioner n amely Satya Priya Jayasingh, the Managing Partner of M/s. Maa Chandeswari Granites agreed t o transfer the lease of a granite stone mine quarry at village Dimi r itadi, in Tahasil Dasapalla over the plot bearing No.12 pertainin g to Khata No.22 for an area of 1 3.60 Acres. Although it is s tated that the Petitioner executed a n irrevocable

¶18

CRLMC No. 348 of 2023

¶19

Page 1 of 8

¶20

general power o f attorney dated 20.11.2017 in f a vour of the Opposite Party N o.2-Informant for raising, operating and running the mines, it is a lleged that he being induced by the p r omise of the Petitioner by tra n sfer the lease, the Opposite Party N o .2-Informant paid considerati o n of Rs.1,45,00,000/- apart from R s .20,00,000/paid subsequent l y against the residuary amount of Rs.30,00,000/paid towards procurement of goods. According to the P etitioner, the aforesaid allegat i ons are vexatious, concocted and ex f a cie false and has been made s o with the sole intention to coerce the Petitioner to transfer the mini n g lease in his favour pursuant to the O disha Minor Minerals Amen d ment Act, 2022 vide Gazette Notif i cation dated 31.03.2022 whi c h allows transfer of leases. Acco r ding to the Petitioner, the c o nsideration amount alleged to have b e en paid was received from o n e M/s. Walter Vanijya (P) Ltd. for sale of stones from the said qu a rry. The Opposite Party No.2/ Infor m ant by virtue of the irrevoca b le of power of attorney continue t o operate the quarry without any hindrance. Thus, on a bare p e rusal of the allegations mad e in the report, there appears no pri m a facie case made out again s t the Petitioner for commission of the offences under Section 420/406/467/468/471/506/34 of IPC. It i s further case of the Petitioner that the criminal case thus motivated b y vengeance to settle his score against the Petitioner, who refus e s to transfer and/or initiate t he process to transfer the lease in his favour. Furthermore, it is the case of the Petitioner that s o far as the monetary aspec t is concerned, the nature of disp u te is purely contractual and t h e Opposite Party No.2-Informant has all means to initiate a money claim for recovery, hence, the FIR i s liable to be quashed.

¶21

CRLMC No. 348 of 2023

¶22

Page 2 of 8

¶23

Perusal of the case record reveals that the EOW, Bhubaneswar re g istered the FIR No.02 of 2023 for the offences under Section 4 2 0/406/467/468/471/506/34 of IPC i m plicating the Petitioner. The F IR allegations reveals that the Petiti o ner failed to keep the promis e in taking steps towards transfer the granite stone quarry lease in f a vour of the Opposite Party-Informan t , who claims to have paid a s u m of Rs.1.45 Crore as advance in t h e year 2018. Although such t r ansfer of lease was not permissible under law prior to the amendme n t in the OMMC Rules in the year 202 2 .

¶24

Mr. Mis h ra, learned counsel for the Petitioner, submits that the Petitioner ru n s a partnership firm in the name and style of M/s Maa Chandeswa r i Granites, which is primarily engag e d in mineral development, e x traction and operation of granite a n d decorative stones from qu a rry sources leased in its favour b y the State Government un d er the provisions of the OMMC Rul e s, 2016. The firm presently operates two such stone quarries through its authorised repre s entatives and/or raising contractors. T he minerals produced are pr o cessed and subsequently sold to trade r s and dealers within and outsi d e the State as per their respective pu r chase orders and indents. P u rsuant to being a successful leaseholder, the Department of S t eel and Mines, vide letter dated 20.09.2017, issued a grant order in the Petitioner’s favour, setting out t h e terms and conditions for e x ecution of a mining lease in respe c t of an area measuring 13.6 0 acres for decorative stones in villa g e Dimiritadi under Dasapalla Tahasil in the district of Nayagarh. O n 20.11.2017, the Petitioner’s firm executed an irrevocable Gene r al Power of Attorney in fav o ur of the Informant for the purpose of raising and operating the sai d decorative stone quarry. The said G e neral Power

¶25

CRLMC No. 348 of 2023 Page 3 of 8

¶26

of Attorney was communicated to the Mining Of f icer, as per procedural requi r ements, vide letter dated 14.12.2017.

¶27

According to the learned counsel for the Peti t ioner, in the ordinary course of its business, the firm received pu r chase orders from M/s Walte r Vanijya (P) Ltd. for the sale of deco r ative stones. The Opposite P a rty No.2/Informant, acting on behal f of the firm, accepted the sai d orders, against which an advance a m ount of Rs. 1,45,00,000/- w a s received during the relevant year b y the firm at the request of t h e Informant. The irrevocable Power of Attorney was executed in favour of the Opposite Party No.2/I n formant not only for the ope r ation of the stone quarry but also for m anaging the quarry and unde r taking sale transactions with vendors , traders, etc. However, the O p posite Party No.2/Informant failed o n numerous occasions to p e rform the contractual obligations, resulting in substantial loss t o the Petitioner’s firm. The advance r e ceived from M/s Walter Van i jya (P) Ltd. was received by the fir m and not by the Opposite Par t y No.2/Informant, and therefore the I n formant has no claim whatso e ver vis-à-vis the Petitioner’s firm no r any liability towards M/s Walter Vanijya (P) Ltd. Consequently, it is submitted that the allegati o ns made in the FIR dated 09.01.2023, implicating the Petitio n er in offences under Sections 420/406/467/46 8 /471/506/34 of the IPC, cannot stan d the test of law. In the abs e nce of any material to substantiate t h e allegation that the Petition e r was required to transfer the lease in favour of the Opposite Party N o.2/Informant, the accusations lack the prima facie ingredients nec e ssary to implicate the Petitioner in the alleged offences.

¶28

CRLMC No. 348 of 2023

¶29

Page 4 of 8

¶30

The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of State of M.P. vs. Awadh Kishore Gupta , reported in (2004) 1 SCC 691 , while referring to the d ecision in the matter of State of Haryana and Ors. vs. Ch. Bhajanlal and Ors. reported in 1992 Supp(1) SCC 335 , has held as follows:-

¶31

“As n oted above, the powers possessed by t he High Court un d er Section 482 of the Code are very w ide and the very p lenitude of the power requires great c a ution in its exerci s e. Court must be careful to see that its d ecision in exerci s e of this power is based on sound pr i nciples. The inhe r ent power should not be exercised to stifle a legitimat e prosecution. High Court being the highest Court of a State should normally refrain from g iving a prima fa c ie decision in a case where the entire f acts are incomple t e and hazy, more so when the evidenc e has not been collected and produced before the Court and the issues i n volved, whether factual or legal, are of magnitud e and cannot be seen in their true pe r spective without s u fficient material. Of course, no hard and fast rule can b e laid down in regard to cases in w h ich the High Co u rt will exercise its extraordinary jurisd i ction of quashing the proceeding at any stage. (See: The Janata Dal etc. v . H.S. Chowdhary and others, etc. (A I R 1993 SC 892), Dr. Raghubir Saran v. State of Bihar and another ( A IR 1964 SC 1)). It would not be prop e r for the High Co u rt to analyse the case of the complaina n t in the light of a l l probabilities in order to determine w hether a convictio n would be sustainable and, on such premises, arrive at a conclusion that the proceedings a r e to be quashed. It would be erroneous to assess the material before it and conclude that the complaint c a nnot be proceede d with. In proceeding instituted on complaint, exercise o f the inherent powers to quash the pro c eedings is called f or only in a case where the complaint d oes not disclose any offence or is frivolous, vexa t ious or oppressive. If the allegations set out in the com p laint do not const i tute the offence of which cognizance h as been taken by the Magistrate, it is open to the High C ourt to quash th e same in exercise of the inherent powe r s under Section 4 82 of the Code. It is not, however, n e cessary

¶32

CRLMC No. 348 of 2023

¶33

Page 5 of 8

¶34

that ther e should be meticulous analysis of t he case before th e trial to find out whether the case wou l d end in convictio n or acquittal. The complaint has to be r ead as a whole. I f it appears that on consideration of the allegatio n s in the light of the statement made o n oath of the com p lainant that the ingredients of the of f ence or offences a re disclosed and there is no material to show that the c o mplaint is mala fide, frivolous or vex a tious, in that even t there would be no justification for interference by the Hi g h Court. When an information is lodg e d at the police st a tion and an offence is registered, then t he mala fides of t h e informant would be of secondary im p ortance. It is the m aterial collected during the investiga t ion and evidence led in Court which decides the fat e of the accused p erson. The allegations of mala fides ag a inst the informan t are of no consequence and cannot by itself be the basis for quashing the proceeding. (See : Mrs. Dhanalakshmi v. R. Prasanna Kumar and oth e rs (AIR 1990 SC 494), State of Bihar and another v . P. P. Sharma, I .A.S. and another (1992 Suppl (1) S C C 222), Rupan Deol Bajaj (Mrs.) and another v. Kanwar Pal Singh Gill and another (1995 (6) SCC 194), State of Kerala a n d others v. O.C. Kuttan and others ( 1 999 (2) SCC 651 ) , State of U.P. v. O. P. Sharma (1996 ( 7) SCC 705), Ra s hmi Kumar (Smt.) v. Mahesh Kuma r Bhada (1997 (2 ) SCC 397), Satvinder Kaur v. State ( G ovt. of NCT of D elhi) and another (1999 (8) SCC 728), Rajesh Bajaj v. S tate NCT of Delhi and others AIR 1 999 SC 1216).

¶35

Thes e aspects were also highlighted in S tate of Karnatak a v. M. Devendrappa and another ( 2 002 (3) SCC 89). ”

¶36

Thus, th e ratio in the above-referred decisio n serves as a binding caution that the process of law cannot be permitted to continue where the allegations, taken at their face v alue, do not constitute any o ffence. Coming to the merits of the case, it is evident that the e ntire prosecution rests on the allegations made by the Opposite Party No.2-Informant. Therefore, th e allegations appearing in the report are germane to the case regi s tered by the

¶37

CRLMC No. 348 of 2023 Page 6 of 8

¶38

EOW. From the report, it emerges that the Opposite Party No.2Informant, being aggrieved by the conduct of the Petit i oner, alleges that despite ha v ing received a sum of Rs.1,45, 0 0,000/-, the Petitioner did n o t take steps for transfer of the mi n ing lease in favour of the Op p osite Party No.2-Informant.

¶39

Such all e gations are premised on the asser t ion that the Petitioner’s firm entered into an agreement with the O p posite Party No.2-Informant p ermitting it to operate the quarry b y virtue of an irrevocable pow e r of attorney. Admittedly, however, o n the date the alleged payment was made to the Petitioner towards s uch transfer, transfer of the l e ase was not permissible in law unde r the OMMC Rules, 2016. C o nsequently, any agreement betwee n the parties contrary to law cannot be enforced. On the contrary , a power of attorney, whethe r revocable or irrevocable, granted by t he Petitioner in favour of the O pposite Party No.2-Informant is alw a ys subject to the will of the executant. Any violation of the terms of the agreement or th e general power of attorney, if at all, is a matter of civil dispute, a n d the parties to such privity may s e ek redressal before a competent civil court by way of recovery o r appropriate directions.

¶40

In the m atter of Tarina Sen vs. Union of India & Anr. , 2024 INSC 752 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that disputes arising out of co n tractual or civil arrangements cannot be given the colour of crim i nal prosecution in the absence o f the basic ingredients of th e alleged offences; read as follows:

¶41

“15. R elying on the earlier judgments of t h is Court, we have hel d that in the matters arising out of commercial, financial, mercantile, civil, partnership or such like

¶42

CRLMC No. 348 of 2023

¶43

Page 7 of 8

¶44

transactions or the offences arising out of matri m ony relating to dowry, etc. or family disputes where the wro n g is basically private o r personal in nature and the parties h ave resolved their enti r e dispute, the High Court should exerc i se its powers under Se c tion 482 CrPC for giving an end to the criminal proceedi n gs. We have held that the possibility of conviction in such cases is remote and bleak and as such, the c o ntinuation of the crim i nal proceedings would put the acc u sed to great oppressio n and prejudice.”

¶45

In view o f the above, the allegations that prim a facie appear in the report per t ain to a civil dispute, if any, to be re s olved before the appropriate civil forum, and there is no mater i al to justify continuation of t h e criminal proceeding against the Pet i tioner.

¶46

Hence, t h is Court is of the view that the rep o rt lodged by the Opposite Pa r ty No.2/Informant basing on which the FIR has been registered, b ears no material prima facie to mak e out the case in the offences a lleged and the same cannot proceed i n the eye of law and deserv e s to be quashed. Accordingly, the CRLMC is disposed of.

¶47

(Chittaranjan Dash) Judge

¶48

Bijay

¶49

Signature Not Verified

¶50

Digitally Signed Signed by: BIJAY KETAN SAHOO Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORI SSA Date: 22-Oct-2025 11:10:49

¶51

CRLMC No. 348 of 2023

¶52

Page 8 of 8

Satya Priya Jayasingh v. State of Odisha(Eow)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Satya Priya Jayasingh v. State of Odisha(Eow)

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

Rakesh Ratan Nath Vs Depanjali Nayak

Sushanta Mohapatra Vs State of Odisha

Himansu Barik Vs State of Odisha