Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Orissa High Court

Rajib @ Rajeev Lochan Das vs State Of Odisha ... Opposite Party on 12 March, 2026

Author: G. Satapathy

Bench: G. Satapathy

            IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
                      BLAPL No.724 of 2025
      Rajib @ Rajeev Lochan Das             ...           Petitioner
                                 Mr. S.S. Pattanayak, Advocate
                               -versus-
      State of Odisha                     ...    Opposite Party
                                      Mr. R.B. Mishra, Addl. PP
                      Mr. S.K. Sarangi, Sr. Advocate along with
                           Mr. B. Nayak, Advocate (Informant)

                     CORAM: JUSTICE G. SATAPATHY
Order No.               ORDER(ORAL):12.03.2026
  05.         IA No.158 of 2025
              1.

This is an application by the petitioner/ informant to initiate a proceeding in the nature of Section 340 of CrPC against the petitioner-Rajib @ Rajeev Lochan Das, deponent-cum-advocate clerk namely Manoj Kumar Mohanty, conducting advocate and the Corporator namely Mohalisha Behera, who is stated to have issued the death certificate in the bail application.

2. Heard, Mr. Santanu Kumar Sarangi, learned Sr. Counsel who is being assisted by Mr. Balaram Nayak, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Sumit Sekhar Pattnaik, learned counsel for the bail petitioner and Mr. R.B. Mishra, learned Addl. PP in the matter and perused the record.

3. It is relevant to note that the petitioner-informant in IA No.158 of 2025 by averring the following in the paragraphs-3, 4 and 5 has prayed to initiate the aforesaid proceeding:-

"3. That notwithstanding the fact that the corporator doesn't have authority to issue such a Page 1 of 4 Certificate, one of the address of the petitioner has been mentioned as, Sai Niwas:-201, Behind the World, Near Metro City Apartment, Nayapalli, Bhubaneswar, PIN:-751012 in the said Certificate.

4. This is to put it on record that the address as mentioned in para-3 hereinabove belonging to the petitioner is false, The said address/flat is owned by one Mr. Tapan Bhoi who has been residing in the said flat since 2018 with family.

5. That it has also been stated in the alleged Death Certificate that the petitioner's family members were residents of rented flat situated at Flat No:-1301, Tower 2, Z1 Apartment, PS:-

Infocity, PO:- KIIT, Bhubaneswar, PIN:-751024 and the petitioner's father had died in the said flat at 4AM on 12.01.2025 in presence of family members."

4. It is not out of place to state here that Mr. Santanu Kumar Sarangi, who is being assisted by Mr. Balaram Nayak, learned counsel for the petitioner while arguing in the matter confines his submission against the petitioner in the bail application, but he, however, concedes against the deponent-cum-advocate clerk namely Manoj Kumar Mohanty, conducting advocate in the bail application and the Corporator namely Mohalisha Behera, who is stated to have issued the death certificate. It is no more res integra that the proceeding in the nature of Section 340 of CrPC can be initiated, if in the opinion of the Court that it is expedient in the interest of justice and in such event, it can direct for an inquiry or can direct for making a complaint. The phraseology "it is expedient in the interest of justice" as available in the Section-340 of CrPC itself sufficiently denotes that the Court in each and every case is not bound to initiate a proceeding in the Page 2 of 4 nature of Section 340 of CrPC, merely because the informant is aggrieved by the averments appearing in the application of other side or by suppression of facts in such application. In this regard, 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; wherein a Constitutional Bench of five Judges of our Apex Court has held in paragraph 23 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 Page 3 of 4 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. Any interpretation which leads to a situation where a victim of a crime is rendered remediless, has to be discarded."

5. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstance and taking into account the unconditional concession as extended by Mr. Sarangi, learned Senior Counsel against the deponent-cum-advocate clerk namely Manoj Kumar Mohanty, conducting advocate in the bail application and the Corporator namely Mohalisha Behera, who is stated to have issued the death certificate and the filing of complaint against the petitioner only being considered unwarranted, which in the event would only consume the valuable time of the Court, this Court does not consider it proper to direct any inquiry in the matter or registration of complaint against the petitioner-Rajib @ Rajeev Lochan Das.

6. Accordingly, the IA No.158 of 2025 stands dismissed.

7. Mr. Sumit Sekhar Pattanayak, learned counsel for the petitioner by placing the memo seeks permission of the Court to withdraw the present bail application. Accordingly, the present bail application stands disposed of as withdrawn.

(G. Satapathy) Designation: Sr. Stenographer Reason: Authentication Judge Subhasmita Location: High Court of Orissa Date: 13-Mar-2026 15:28:54 Page 4 of 4