Prajana Prakash Nayak vs Sonia Tripathy .... Opposite Party on 10 April, 2026

[Cites 21, Cited by 0]

Orissa High Court

Prajana Prakash Nayak vs Sonia Tripathy .... Opposite Party on 10 April, 2026

1. I.A. has been filed on 06.01.2025 purportedly under the provision: Section 340 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 (corresponding to section 379 of BNSS,2023) read with Chapter-VI, Rule- 27(A) of the Orissa High Court Rules, 1948 by the informant in the case out of which the BLAPL No. 7177 of 2024 arose. The present I.A. has been filed after BLAPL No. 7177 of 2024 along with I.A. No.1214 of 2024 were disposed of by this bench, by separate orders dated 22.11.2024.

Page 1 of 22

2. Mr. S.K.Dwivedy, on behalf of Mr. A.K.Acharya, learned counsel submitted that he is appearing for the petitioner in the disposed of bail application.

3. BLAPL No. 7177 of 2024 was not within the determination of this bench when it was taken up. The assigned bench that took up the said BLAPL directed the matter to be placed before Hon'ble the then Chief Justice for assignment. Hon'ble the then Chief Justice in the administrative side directed the matter to be listed before this bench.

4. The BLAPL No. 7177 of 2024 was disposed of by the order dated 22.11.2024 which is reproduced herein :

BLAPL No. 7177 of 2024

1. The matter has been listed before this Bench in view of the orders of the Hon'ble the Chief Justice in the Administrative side after the co-ordinate Bench passed order in the petition dated 20th September, 2024, for placing the matter before Hon'ble the Chief Justice for assignment.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has served copy of the I.A. no.1509 of 2024 on the learned Additional Government Advocate and Mr. H.S. Mishra, learned counsel for the informant.

3. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the informant that BLAPL No.6150 of 2024 filed by the petitioner was disposed of by a coordinate Bench on 20.11.2024 the said BLAPL was arising out of self- same P.S. case.

4. It is observed that the present BLAPL was filed on 9th July 2024 and is placed before this Bench for, consideration as per the orders of Hon'ble the Chief Justice in the administrative side.

5. Learned counsel for the informant/complainant vehemently opposes the prayer of the petitioner and Page 2 of 22 submits that the bail petition is liable to be dismissed in limine due to the defects in filing.

There is no reference to any provision in the Cr.P.C. (since repealed) or the Rules of the High Court which mandate such a course to be adopted by the Court.

He submits that the petition filed for amendment is not maintainable.

6. Mr. Acharya, learned counsel for the petitioner in response submits that he has filed the petition (I.A. No.1509 of 2024) which is otherwise maintainable. He has filed the I.A. partly in response to the I.A. filed on behalf of the informant/complainant praying for dismissal of the BLAPL and prays for amendment to be allowed and further prays for acceptance of amended consolidated BLAPL. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that after filing of the present application (BLAPL No.7177 of 2024) stamp reporting was made as per the Rules of the Orissa High Court, no defect has been pointed by the Stamp Report. It is submitted the petitioner had no occasion to come to know any such defect as pointed out by the informant/complainant through his I.A.

7. At this stage it is submitted that the petitioner wants to withdraw the petition with liberty to file afresh with better particulars.

The prayer is allowed.

8. The BLAPL is disposed of as withdrawn with liberty as prayed for.

All the I.As. arising out of the BLAPL stand disposed of."

5. The I.A. No. 1214 of 2024 was filed by the present applicant (in I.A. No.19 of 2025), the 'informant' with the following prayer :

"Therefore Opp. Party No:-2/informant prays that Your Lordships may graciously be pleased to consider the facts stated in the petition, allow the same and direct an enquiry and to file a complaint Page 3 of 22 through the office of the Hon'ble Court against the petitioner and the deponent in term of Section-340 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 after due inquiry against the petitioner & the deponent for the offence committed U/S:-193/195/199/200 of the Indian Penal Code for the interest of Justice And pass any other order/order(s)/direction/ direction(s) as your Lordships deem just and proper including rejection of the present bail application on resorting to falsehood by furnishing wrong statement & suppression and misrepresentation of material facts time & again."

6. The I.A. was disposed of by the following order dated 22.11.2024 by this Bench:

"9. Heard Mr. Mishra for the applicant/informant. I.A. No.1214 of 2024 arising out of the BLAPL has been filed by the informant/complainant purportedly invoking Section 340 of the Cr.P.C., 1973 (since repealed) with the following prayer. "Opp. Party No.2/informant prays that Your Lordships may graciously be pleased to consider the facts stated in the petition, allow the same and direct an enquiry and to file a complaint through the office of the Hon'ble Court against the petitioner & the deponent for the offence committed U/s.193/195/199/200 of the Indian Penal Code for the interest of justice.

And pass any other/order(s)/direction/ direction(s) as your Lordships deem just and proper including rejection of the present bail application on resorting to falsehood by furnishing wrong statement & suppression and misrepresentation of material facts time & again."

10. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the informant that in view of Section 340 of the Cr.P.C., 1973 (since repealed) the I.A. should be kept pending after the petition out of which the I.A. arises is disposed of.

Page 4 of 22

11. Relevant portion of Section 340 of the Cr.P.C. (since repealed) is reproduced herein:

"340. Procedure in cases mentioned in section

195.--(1) When, upon an application made to it in this behalf or otherwise, any Court is of opinion that it is expedient in the interests of Justice that an inquiry should be made into any offence referred to in clause (b) of sub-section (1) of section 195, which appears to have been committed in or in relation to a proceeding in that Court or, as the case may be, in respect of a document produced or given in evidence in a proceeding in that Court, such Court may, after such preliminary inquiry, if any, as it thinks necessary, - ... ..."

Having gone through the provisions contained in section 340 of Cr.P.C. (since repealed), in considered opinion of this Court, in view of the disposal of the BLAPL having been withdrawn without being considered on merits, the I.A. arising out of the BLAPL also stands disposed of.

7. The prayer in the present I.A. No. 19 of 2025 that is for consideration reproduced herein :

"Therefore Opp. Party No:-2/informant prays that Your Lordships may graciously be pleased to consider the facts stated in the petition, allow the same and direct an enquiry, if necessary and to file a complaint trough the office of the Hon'ble Court against the petitioner and the deponent, in term of Section-340 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, against the petitioner and the deponent of the BLAPL 7177/2024 for the offences committed U/S:-

93/195/199/200 of the Indian Penal Code for the interest of Justice And pass any other order/order(s)/direction/direction(s) as Your Lordships deem just and proper on resorting to falsehood by furnishing wrong statement and misrepresentation of material facts time & again."

8. Upon reading and comparison of the prayers made in I.A. No. 1214 of 2024 disposed of on Page 5 of 22 22.11.2024 and I.A. No.19 of 2025 filed on 06.01.2025 would lead to the irresistible conclusion that inter alia the prayers are identical to initiate proceeding against the applicant in withdrawn BLAPL No. 7177 of 2024 and the deponent in an affidavit filed in the withdrawn BLAPL, u/s.340 of Cr.P.C. Both the I.As have been filed by the same person-'informant'.

9. The I.A. No.19 of 2025 was taken on 10.10.2025 and the following order was passed :

"2. It is stated in the petition supported by affidavit that false affidavit has been filed in the proceeding BLAPL No. 7177 of 2024 disposed of as withdrawn on 22.11.2024. A further prayer is made that to initiate a proceeding under section 340 of CrPC, 1973 (since repealed and substituted by Bharatiya Nagarika Surakshya Samhita).

3. The records of the said BLAPL and the present I.A. shall be placed before the Registrar (Judicial) to furnish a prima facie report before this Court for consideration regarding the allegations made in the I.A."

10. Pursuant to the said order, learned Registrar (Judicial) of this Court has placed for consideration of this Court his report which indicates :

"...Being noticed the informant had appeared before the undersigned and had filed affidavit along with certain documents in support of his claim. He mainly relied upon documents obtained through RTI which are marked as Annexure-D/1 and D/2. The learned counsel appearing for the informant had submitted that the accused is in habit of filing such forged documents in the Court of Law. Previously, she had filed forged medical documents and basing upon which Infocity P.S. Case No.368 of 2023 has been registered. Similarly, enquiry was conducted by the learned District and Sessions, Judge, Khurda as per the direction of the Hon'ble Court in CRLMC No.4587 of Page 6 of 22 2024 and CRLMC No.4617 of 2024 wherein it is found that the accused had practiced fraud. {{ On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the accused submitted that the allegations made in I.A. 19 of 2025 are false and concoted. The informant had not submitted any forged document. So far as the address mentioned in the cause title of BLAPL No.7177 of 2024 is concerned it was submitted that ICC Case No.5142 of 2023 was filed by the informant mentioning the address of the accused to be "Resident of 1301, Tower 2, Z1 Estate, P.S. Infocity, Raghunathpur, Bhubaneswar." The FIR was also registered against the accused mentioning her address "Resident of 1301, Tower 2, Z1 Estate, P.S. Infocity, Raghunathpur, Bhubaneswar." The cause title of the order of the learned Additional Session Judge, Bhubaneswar in BLAPL No.1293 of 2024 dated 05.07.2024 also reveals the same residential address. So as not to cause any discrepancy and to avoid defect in BLAPL No.7177 of 2024, the address of the accused was mentioned to be "Resident of 1301, Tower 2, Z1 Estate, P.S. Infocity, Raghunathpur, Bhubaneswar." There is no such intention on the part of the informant to commit fraud on the Court.

Perused BLAPL No.7177 of 2024, 1.A. 19 of 2025 and all other connected documents relied upon by both the sides. On going through the above documents as well as the submisions made by both the sides it reveals that the informant primarily relied upon Annexure-D/1 supplied to him by PIO-cum-IIC Infocity PS as per his RTI application to substantiate his claim that the informant had left the residential address mentioned in the affidavit as well as in the cause title of BLAPL No.7177 of 2024 in the month of June/July of 2023 and filed false affidavit with documents. Although this is the claim of the informant that the accused had left the above mentioned residence in the month of June/ July 2023, he had filed the complaint case Page 7 of 22 bearing number ICC 5142 of 2023 on 18.10.2023 mentioning the same address of the accused. Although the IIC, Infocity PS provided the information basing upon the RTI application that the accused had left that place of residence on 28.06.2023(Annexure-D/1), the FIR in Infocity PS Case No.368 of 2023 was registered mentioning the same address of the accused on 08.11.2023. In the charge sheet number 65 submitted by the Investigating Officer counter signed by the OIC, at column number 16, page number 17 (Annexure-1 of BLAPL No.7177 of 2024) it is mentioned that during course of the investigation he had visited the spot shown by the informant and the spot in this case is the rented house of the accused Sonia Tripathy i.e. Flat No.1301, Tower 2, Z1 apartment, Infocity PS. So if the chargesheet alongwith the FIR and complaint petition filed by the informant are believed, at least till the commencement of the investigation in Infocity PS case no. 368 of 2023 registered on 08.11.2023 the accused Sonia Tripathy was staying in Flat No.1301, Tower 2, Z1 apartment, Infocity PS. And if that is correct, then the information supplied vide Annexure-D/1 under RTI Act by the IIC, Infocity PS cannot be said to be correct. That apart no other document could be produced by the informant to substantiate his claim that the documents annexed with the affidavit filed by the father of the accused was forged.

1.A. No.19 of 2025 was filed to initate proceeding U/s 340 Cr.P.C. against the accused for filing forged affidavit and documents in BLAPL No.7177 of 2024. However, the said affidavit and documents were filed by her father.

As reveals from the case record the informant had filed I.A. 1214 of 2024 agitating the same facts mentioned in the present I.A. i.e. I.A. 19 of 2025. Although I.A. No.1214 of 2024 was disposed of by the Hon'ble Court vide order dated 22.11.2024 the same was not challenged by the informant in any forum.

Placed for favour of kind consideration and orders."

Page 8 of 22

11. Apparently before learned Registrar(Judicial) pursuant to the order of this Court, the petitioner in I.A. No. 1214 of 2024 'informant' had appeared, filed affidavit enclosing documents obtained through RTI those have been annexed to his affidavit.

Regarding the allegations made in the I.A. as well as affidavit filed before the learned Registrar (Judicial) the following facts have emerged: the address of the applicant in BLAPL alleged to be 'forged' by the informant is the address mentioned by 'informant' in case filed on 18.10.2023 by 'informant':

ICC No.5142 of 2023;

FIR dated 8.11.2023 mentions the same address;

the order dated 05.07.2024 by Addl. Sessions Judge, Bhubaneswar in the application before the said court also mentions the same address;

and the charge sheet filed by IO also mentions the address.

12. Mr. H.S.Mishra, learned counsel appeared for the petitioner in the I.A. by Vakalatnama filed on 29.08.2024. Shri Balaram Nayak, learned counsel having given consent on 27.08.2024. Shri H.S.Mishra, learned counsel filed memorandum on dated 27.10.2025 indicating that "has got no instruction for the informant-O.P. Hence, my appearance may be ignored." Shri Balaram Nayak, learned counsel along Page 9 of 22 with learned associate Shri U.K.Nayak filed Vakalatnama executed on 12.11.2025. Shri Balaram Nayak has given consent on 22.03.2026 for any other counsel to be engaged and Shri J. Katikia has appeared by filing Vakalatnama dated 26.03.2026.

13. The learned counsel Mr. Katikia for the petitioner in the I.A. submits that he now appears for the informant who was the petitioner in the BLAPL disposed of by order dated 22.11.2024. He refers to the disposal of I.A. No. 1214 of 2024 along with BLAPL. He submits that after disposal of the application, he has entered appearance on behalf of informant by filing Vakalatnama with consent of the learned previous counsel.

Perusal of the prayers made in the I.A. No. 1214 of 2024 disposed of on 22.11.2024 and in the present I.A. No. 19 of 2025 leads to irresistible conclusion that both the applications have been filed by the same individual through the same learned counsel. Later the learned counsels have been changed twice as the petitioner in I.A. has obtained change.

14. Now this Court while considering the present petition is conscious of the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court and the principles laid therein i.e. Tamil Nadu Electricity Board and another v. N. Raju Reddair and another1, wherein dealing with the question whether review application can be filed after 1 (1997) 9 SCC 736 Page 10 of 22 dismissal of the appeal/Special Leave Petition by another counsel who was not on record and who was not heard while dealing with the appeal/Special Leave Petition it was held, "When an appeal/special leave petition is dismissed, except in rare cases where error of law or fact is apparent on the record, no review can be filed, that too by the Advocate on Record who neither appeared nor was party in the main case. It is salutary to note that the court spends valuable time in deciding a case. Review petition is not, and should not be, an attempt for hearing the matter again on merits.

Unfortunately, it has become, in recent time, a practice to file such review petitions as a routine, that too, with change of counsel, without obtaining consent of the Advocate on Record at earlier stage."

15. Learned counsel Shri Katikia is heard at length. Shri S.K.Dwivedy, learned counsel being present submits that he appears along with Mr. A.K. Acharya, learned counsel and has instruction to appear on behalf of the person who was applicant in the disposed of BLAPL.

16. Section 362 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (since repealed and substituted by pari materia provision contained in section 403 of BNSS, 2023) provides thus :

"362. Court not to alter judgment- Save as otherwise provided by this Code or by any other law for the time being in force, no Court when it has signed its judgment or final order disposing of a case, shall alter or review the same except to correct a clerical or arithmetical error."

Page 11 of 22

17. The principle of law contained in S.362 CrPC/S.403 of BNSS, 2023 as would be also applicable to High Court has been elaborately dealt with by the Hon'ble Apex Court in State of Punjab v Davinder Pal Singh Bhullar and others2. The relevant paragraphs which are apt and applied in the present matter, are reproduced herein :

"III. Bar to review/alter judgment

44. There is no power of review with the criminal court after the judgment has been rendered. The High Court can alter or review its judgment before it is signed. When an order is passed, it cannot be reviewed. Section 362 CrPC is based on an acknowledged principle of law that once a matter is finally disposed of by a court, the said court in the absence of a specific statutory provision becomes functus officio and is disentitled to entertain a fresh prayer for any relief unless the former order of final disposal is set aside by a court of competent jurisdiction in a manner prescribed by law. The court becomes functus officio the moment the order for disposing of a case is signed. Such an order cannot be altered except to the extent of correcting a clerical or arithmetical error. There is also no provision for modification of the judgment. (See Hari Singh Mann v. Harbhajan Singh Bajwa [(2001) 1 SCC 169 : 2001 SCC (Cri) 113] and Chhanni v. State of U.P. [(2006) 5 SCC 396 : (2006) 2 SCC (Cri) 466] )

45. Moreover, the prohibition contained in Section 362 CrPC is absolute; after the judgment is signed, even the High Court in exercise of its inherent power under Section 482 CrPC has no authority or jurisdiction to alter/review the same. (See Moti Lal v. State of M.P. [(2012) 11 SCC 427 :

(2011)14 SCC 770 Page 12 of 22 AIR 1994 SC 1544] , Hari Singh Mann [(2001) 1 SCC 169 : 2001 SCC (Cri) 113] and State of Kerala v. M.M. Manikantan Nair [(2001) 4 SCC 752 : 2001 SCC (Cri) 808] .) xxx xxx xxx

47. This Court by virtue of Article 137 of the Constitution has been invested with an express power to review any judgment in criminal law and while no such power has been conferred on the High Court, inherent power of the court cannot be exercised for doing that which is specifically prohibited by the Code itself. (Vide State v. K.V. Rajendran [(2008) 8 SCC 673 : (2008) 3 SCC (Cri) 600 : AIR 2009 SC 46] .)

48. In Sooraj Devi v. Pyare Lal [(1981) 1 SCC 500 : 1981 SCC (Cri) 188 : AIR 1981 SC 736] this Court held that the prohibition in Section 362 CrPC against the Court altering or reviewing its judgment, is subject to what is "otherwise provided by this Code or by any other law for the time being in force". Those words, however, refer to those provisions only where the Court has been expressly authorised by the Code or other law to alter or review its judgment. The inherent power of the Court is not contemplated by the saving provision contained in Section 362 CrPC and, therefore, the attempt to invoke that power can be of no avail.

49. Thus, the law on the issue can be summarised to the effect that the criminal justice delivery system does not clothe the court to add or delete any words, except to correct the clerical or arithmetical error as specifically been provided under the statute itself after pronouncement of the judgment as the Judge becomes functus officio.

Any mistake or glaring omission is left to be corrected only by the appropriate forum in accordance with law.

xxx xxx xxx Page 13 of 22

56. In Popular Muthiah v. State [(2006) 7 SCC 296 : (2006) 3 SCC (Cri) 245] explaining the scope of Section 482 CrPC, this Court held : (SCC p. 316, para 48) "48. ... [The High Court] cannot issue directions to investigate the case from a particular angle or by a particular agency."

(emphasis added) Thus, in case the High Court in exercise of its inherent powers issues directions contravening the statutory provisions laying down the procedure of investigation, it would be unwarranted in law.

xxx xxx xxx

58. This Court has consistently emphasised that Judges must enforce laws whatever they may be and decide the cases strictly in accordance with the law. "The laws are not always just and the lights are not always luminous. Nor, again, are judicial methods always adequate to secure justice". But the courts "are bound by the Penal Code and the Criminal Procedure Code" by the very "oath" of the office.

(See Joseph Peter v. State of Goa, Daman and Diu [(1977) 3 SCC 280 : 1977 SCC (Cri) 486 : AIR 1977 SC 1812] .) xxx xxx xxx

65. The court is "not to yield to spasmodic sentiments, to vague and unregulated benevolence". The court "is to exercise discretion informed by tradition, methodised by analogy, disciplined by system". This Court in State of Rajasthan v. Prakash Chand [(1998) 1 SCC 1 :

AIR 1998 SC 1344] observed as under : (SCC pp. 38-39, para 58) Page 14 of 22 "58. ... Judicial authoritarianism is what the proceedings in the instant case smack of. It cannot be permitted under any guise. Judges must be circumspect and self-disciplined in the discharge of their judicial functions. ... It needs no emphasis to say that all actions of a Judge must be judicious in character. Erosion of credibility of the judiciary, in the public mind, for whatever reasons, is the greatest threat to the independence of the judiciary. Eternal vigilance by the Judges to guard against any such latent internal danger is, therefore, necessary, lest we 'suffer from self-inflicted mortal wounds'. We must remember that the Constitution does not give unlimited powers to anyone including the Judge of all levels. The societal perception of Judges as being detached and impartial referees is the greatest strength of the judiciary and every member of the judiciary must ensure that this perception does not receive a setback consciously or unconsciously. Authenticity of the judicial process rests on public confidence and public confidence rests on legitimacy of judicial process.

Sources of legitimacy are in the impersonal application by the Judge of recognised objective principles which owe their existence to a system as distinguished from subjective moods, predilections, emotions and prejudices. It is most unfortunate that the order under appeal founders on this touchstone and is wholly unsustainable."

xxx xxx xxx

115. The error in the impugned orders of the High Court transgresses judicious discretion. The process adopted by the High Court led to greater injustice than securing the ends of justice. The path charted by the High Court inevitably reflects a biased approach. It was a misplaced sympathy Page 15 of 22 for a cause that can be termed as being inconsistent to the legal framework. Law is an endless process of testing and re-testing as said by Justice Cardozo in his conclusion of the Judicial Process, ending in a constant rejection of the dross and retention of whatever is pure and sound. The multi-dimensional defective legal process adopted by the court below cannot be justified on any rational legal principle. The High Court was swayed away by the considerations that are legally impermissible and unsustainable."

18. The issue regarding a party relitigating a question or issue which has already been decided though the other party may not satisfy the strict rule of res judicata or the requirement of issue estoppel, was dealt with by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in K.K.Modi v. K.N.Modi3, wherein, the Hon'ble Court quoted with approval the decisions rendered in Greenhalgh v. Mallard4 and Mcllkenny v. Chief Constable of West Midlands Police Force5, at paragraphs 45 & 46 (of SCC print). The said paragraphs are reproduced herein :

"45. In the case of Greenhalgh v. Mallard [(1947) 2 All ER 255] the Court had to consider different proceedings on the same cause of action for conspiracy, but supported by different averments. The Court held that if the plaintiff has chosen to put his case in one way, he cannot thereafter bring the same transaction before the Court, put his case in another way and say that he is relying on a new cause of action. In such circumstances he can be met with the plea of res judicata or the statement or plaint may be struck out on 3 (1998) 3 SCC 573 4 [(1947) 2 All ER 255] 5 [(1980) 2 All ER 227] Page 16 of 22 the ground that the action is frivolous and vexatious and an abuse of the process of the court.

46. In Mcllkenny v. Chief Constable of West Midlands Police Force [(1980) 2 All ER 227] the court of appeal in England struck out the pleading on the ground that the action was an abuse of the process of the court since it raised an issue identical to that which had been finally determined at the plaintiffs' earlier criminal trial. The Court said even when it is not possible to strike out the plaint on the ground of issue estoppel, the action can be struck out as an abuse of the process of the court because it is an abuse for a party to relitigate a question or issue which has already been decided against him even though the other party cannot satisfy the strict rule of res judicata or the requirement of issue estoppel."

19. Learned counsel for the opposite party petitioner in the disposed of bail application submits that similar I.A. Nos. 1588 of 2024 and 80 of 2025 filed by the informant-Prajna Prakash Nayak in Airfield FIR No. 265 of 2021 for initiation of proceeding under section 340 of CrPC against petitioner in BLAPL No. 3078 of 2024 (Rajeev Lochan Das v. State) has been considered by coordinate Bench of this Court and has been dismissed by a reasoned order.

Learned counsel produces the copy of order dated 07.03.2026 passed by the coordinate Bench that dismissed the I.As. He relies on paragraphs 4, 6 & 7 of the order which are reproduced herein :

"4. This Court before dwelling upon the issue on merit considers it proper to reiterate the language of Sec.340 of CrPC which reads as under:-

"Sec.340(1)- When, upon an application made to it in this behalf or otherwise, any Court is of opinion that it is expedient in the interest of Page 17 of 22 justice that an inquiry should be made into any offence referred to in clause (b) of Sub-Section (1) of section 195, which appears to have been committed in or in relation to a proceeding in that Court or, as the case may be, in respect of a document produced or given in evidence in a proceeding in that Court, such Court may, after such preliminary inquiry, if any, as it thinks necessary;

(a) record a finding to that effect;

(b) make a complaint thereof in writing;

(c) send it to a Magistrate of the first class having jurisdiction;

(d) take sufficient security for the appearance for the accused before such Magistrate, or if the alleged offence is non-bailable and the Court thinks it necessary so to do send the accused in custody to such Magistrate; and

(e) bind over any person to appear and give evidence before such Magistrate." xx xx xx xx xx xx xx.

A careful reading of the language as laid down in Sec.340 of CrPC, it appears to the Court that when the Court feels it expedient in the interest of justice to initiate a proceeding, it can initiate such proceeding in the nature of Sec.340 of CrPC against the persons prima facie liable for the offences referred to Sec.195(1)(b) of the CrPC, but it is not mandatory for the Court to proceed against the aforesaid persons, inasmuch as the language that has been used in Sec.340 of CrPC confers discretion to initiate proceeding, if in the opinion of the Court that it is expedient in the interests of justice that an inquiry should be made into any offence referred to in clause (b) of Sub-Section (1) of Sec.195 of the CrPC. In this present case, the petitioner-Rajeev Lochan Das and his wife Sonia Tripathy are admittedly in custody, but the bail application of Rajeev Lochan Das has already been disposed of with rejection of bail to him. Further, this Court considers it profitable to refer to paragraph-23 of the decision in Iqbal Singh Marwah & Another vs. Meenakshi Marwah & Another; (2005) 4 SCC 370 ;

Page 18 of 22

wherein a Constitutional Bench of five Judges of our Apex Court has held there as under:-

"23. In view of the language used in Section 340 CrPC the court is not bound to make a complaint regarding commission of an offence referred to in Section 195(1)(b), as the section is conditioned by the words "court is of opinion that it is expedient in the interests of justice". This shows that such a course will be adopted only if the interest of justice requires and not in every case. Before filing of the complaint, the court may hold a preliminary enquiry and record a finding to the effect that it is expedient in the interests of justice that enquiry should be made into any of the offences referred to in Section 195(1)(b). This expediency will normally be judged by the court by weighing not the magnitude of injury suffered by the person affected by such forgery or forged document, but having regard to the effect or impact, such commission of offence has upon administration of justice. It is possible that such forged document or forgery may cause a very serious or substantial injury to a person in the sense that it may deprive him of a very valuable property or status or the like, but such document may be just a piece of evidence produced or given in evidence in court, where voluminous evidence may have been adduced and the effect of such piece of evidence on the broad concept of administration of justice may be minimal. In such circumstances, the court may not consider it expedient in the interest of justice to make a complaint. The broad view of clause (b)(ii), as canvassed by learned counsel for the appellants, would render the victim of such forgery or forged document remediless.

Page 19 of 22

Any interpretation which leads to a situation where a victim of a crime is rendered remediless, has to be discarded."

xxx xxx xxx

6. Be that as it may, the petitioner-Rajeev Lochan Das is in custody since 10.11.2023 and he is still there in custody, but the informant wants to prosecute him for further in a proceeding in the nature of Sec.340 of CrPC by filing application before this Court, but this Court does not consider it to be expedient in the interest of justice to initiate a proceeding in the nature of Sec.340 of CrPC against the petitioner-Rajeev Lochan Das and his wife-Sonia Tripathy since they are in custody and their liberty has been curtailed. Besides, the allegation against the petitioner for initiation of the proceeding in the nature of Sec.340 of CrPC is for furnishing false address, but as to how the informant was prejudiced for furnishing such incorrect address by the petitioner and his wife has not been substantiated by the informant. Besides, the informant does not want to proceed against the deponent (Advocate Clerk), advocate and the corporator in I.A. No. 80 of 2025.

7. In the aforesaid facts and situation and considering the requirement before initiating a proceeding in the nature of Sec. 340 of CrPC. and the language used therein, this Court does not consider it proper to proceed against the petitioner and his wife by directing initiation of proceeding U/S.340 of CrPC or filing any complaint against them."

20. In view of the above discussions, in considered view of this Court, ingredients of section 340 CrPC are not satisfied for directing any further action.

Further, in considered opinion of this Court, the petition is not entertainable as it would amount to alter/review final order disposing of the I.A. No. 1214 of 2024 by order dated 22.11.2024 (along with BLAPL Page 20 of 22 No. 7177 of 2024 out of which the I.A. arose) there being no clerical or arithmetical error sought to be corrected.

21. I.A. being devoid of merit has to be and is dismissed accordingly.

(Mruganka Sekhar Sahoo) Judge dutta Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: AJIT KUMAR DUTTA Reason: Authentication Location: ohc Date: 23-Apr-2026 22:34:55 Page 21 of 22

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Orissa High Court