Orissa High Court
Chandan Pattnayak vs State Of Odisha .... Opposite Party on 30 November, 2021
Author: R.K. Pattanaik
Bench: R.K. Pattanaik
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
CRLMC No.2383 of 2019
Chandan Pattnayak .... Petitioner
Mr. A. Pr. Ray, Advocate
-Versus-
State of Odisha .... Opposite Party
Mr. D.R. Parida, ASC
CORAM:
MR. JUSTICE R.K. PATTANAIK
DATE OF HEARING 12.11.2021 : DATE OF ORDER 30.11.2021
1.This is an application under Section 482 of Cr.P.C filed by the petitioner assailing the order of cognizance dated 09.02.2018 passed in G.R. Case No.2112 of 2017 by the learned S.D.J.M., Cuttack and to quash the proceeding as a whole which is presently pending in the file of learned A.C.J.M (Special Court), Cuttack in S.T. Case No.56 of 2019 on the stated grounds.
2. It is revealed from the record that the complainant lodged the FIR, later to which, Chauliaganj P.S. Case No.258 was registered on 02.11.2017. In the FIR, the complainant alleged that one of the rooms of the spot house had been locked but in his absence, the petitioner broke it open and when the same was objected to, he was abused in filthy language and was also threatened with dire consequences and in course of events, when the modesty of his wife was outraged, he had to intervene and at that point of time, he was assaulted by means of a hammer for which sustained a bleeding injury on head and fell down. After the lodging of FIR and registration Chauliaganj P.S. Case No.258 of Page 1 of 6 // 2 // 2017, investigation was commenced and finally charge sheet was filed in the year 2018 against the petitioner and his mother in the court of learned S.D.J.M., Cuttack, who took cognizance of the offences under Section(s) 341, 294, 323, 307 and 506 read with 34 IPC by the impugned order dated 09.02.2018. The true copies of the FIR and charge sheet have been filed and are marked as Annexures-1 and 2 respectively. A certified copy of the order of cognizance dated 09.02.2018 stands marked as Annexure-3.
3. According to the petitioner, the complainant suppressed the fact of existence of civil dispute between the parties and only to harass and humiliate him and with an ulterior motive to keep him behind the bar, lodged a false FIR. It is also contended that ill-feeling between the parties was over looked during the investigation and that part, the injuries said to have been received on account of the alleged assault despite being simple in nature and without taking into account pendency of litigation vis-à-vis partition of property in C.S. No 59 of 2017, the charge sheet was filed notwithstanding the fact that the accusation, prima facie, found to be falsehood and in such view of the matter, this Court in exercise of inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. should quash the proceeding in the best interest of justice.
4. Per contra, State opposite party contended that as to the acceptance of allegations or otherwise, it is depending on nature of evidence during and in course of trial and a decision at the end by the learned court below. It is further contended that truthfulness or falsity of the allegations made in the FIR is to be determined during the trial and this is not such a case where the entire proceeding can be quashed by invoking Section 482 Cr.P.C.
Page 2 of 6// 3 //
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that on false grounds, the FIR was lodged by the complainant and that too when, civil litigation is pending between the parties and in so far as the injuries are concerned, since all are simple in nature, the learned court below could not have lost sight of it, while taking cognizance of the offences. It is contended that a lot of exaggeration has been made in the FIR which goes to show that the allegations to be entirely false. Such a contention is advanced for the reason that complainant received a blow on his head by means of a hammer in comparison to the injuries shown to have been sustained during the occurrence. Thus, it is contended that due to the civil litigation in between parties pending in C.S. No.59 of 2017 in the court of learned Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Cuttack, the complainant managed to lodge a false FIR and as a result, initiate criminal proceeding vide G.R. Case No.2112 of 2017 corresponding to S.T. Case No.56 of 2019 which is, therefore, deserves to be set aside in order to do substantial justice.
6. In support of such contention, learned counsel for the petitioner cited a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of R.P. Kapur Vs. State of Punjab reported in AIR 1960 SC 866 which is with regard to powers of High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C and circumstances, in which, it may be exercised to quash the criminal proceedings. In fact, the above decision is a celebrated judgment concerning exercise of inherent jurisdiction by the High Courts in terms of section 482 Cr.P.C. to prevent abuse of process of court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. Another judgment of Supreme Court, the State of Haryana and others Vs. Ch. Bhajan Lal and others reported in 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 is referred to which is also on similar point and an authority placed reliance on time and Page 3 of 6 // 4 // again. A decision of this Court in the case of Abhimanyu Baliarsingh and others Vs. State of Orissa and others reported in (2004) 27 OCR 23 is also cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner besides a judgment in T. Chalapati Rao Vs. The State reported in 94 (2002) CLT 2019 to contend that in the present case by barely looking at the allegations and apparent falsehood, the proceeding in C.T. No.56 of 2019 ought to be quashed.
7. The alleged incident is the described in the FIR (Anenxure-1) and the manner in which the assault was caused to the complainant is mentioned therein. It is alleged that the complainant suffered a head injury by means of a hammer. It is made to suggest that the parties are in litigation for which a civil suit is pending in the court of learned Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Cuttack. According to this Court, whether, the alleged incident is true or false can be decided and determined at the end of the trial. Even, if there is exaggeration, it may not mean to suggest that the entire incident to be a falsehood. On many a time, exaggerations do appear in criminal cases which are very often observed and experienced in Indian courts. For having such an experience, the courts are to be cautious and circumspect, while appreciating the evidence. That apart, an injury simple or otherwise may not be sufficient to determine the intention of the assailant which can properly be examined and appreciated on receiving evidence. All such aspects are to be borne in mind, while taking a decision, as to if, a criminal proceeding should survive or not. In so far as exercise of inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C is concerned, the Supreme Court in Bhajan Lal case laid down certain guidelines/parameters, which are, of course, not exhaustive in nature. In the aforesaid decision, it is held and observed that if a criminal proceeding is manifestly Page 4 of 6 // 5 // attended with malafide or instituted maliciously with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance with a view to attain personal grudge, in such a situation, it should be interfered with and quashed by exercising inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. if on the face value, the allegations in the FIR do not make out a case or commission of a cognizable offence, only in such situation, criminal proceeding is to be terminated. It is not that, for pendency of litigation between the parties or exaggeration in explaining the incident should be the sole ground to quash a criminal proceeding. It is reiterated that falsehood of allegations is to be determined during the trial unless it is glaringly visible on a bare reading of FIR. If a prudent man does not consider the allegations to be probable by looking at the FIR, in such a case, a criminal proceeding may be set aside. Malafide or maliciousness in instituting or initiating a criminal proceeding should be so brazenly open and conspicuous that it should drive the court to reach at a conclusion affecting the genuineness of the incident can certainly be a ground to set it at naught. In the instant case, there may be a civil litigation pending inter se parties or that the complainant exaggerated the alleged incident or it might be that the intention was otherwise and not to cause murder of the victim but then, it can only be examined during trial. Absence of grievous injury or presence of injuries simple in nature, even in present fact situation may not be adequate to hold that the intention was one way or the other. It depends on the nature of evidence received during trial. It may so happen that the learned court below could ultimately land up either accepting the allegations or rejecting it or on partial acceptance of it, even reduce the degree of offences committed during the incident. So, the Court is of the considered view that the FIR as it stands at present do make out a cause of action for initiation of the criminal proceeding and Page 5 of 6 // 6 // therefore, the challenge on this score from the side of the petitioner cannot be sustained.
8. Hence, it is ordered.
9. As a consequence, application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. at the instance of the petitioner stands dismissed for the reasons discussed herein above.
(R.K. Pattanaik) Judge TUDU Page 6 of 6