Orissa High Court
Rajeev Lochan Das vs State Of Odisha ... Opposite Party on 7 March, 2026
Author: G. Satapathy
Bench: G. Satapathy
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
I.A. Nos. 1588 of 2024 & 80 of 2025
(Arising out of BLAPL No.3078 of 2024)
(An applications U/S. 340 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973).
Rajeev Lochan Das ... Petitioner in BLAPL
-versus-
State of Odisha ... Opposite Party
For Petitioner : Mr. S.S. Pattanayak, Advocate,
Mr. S.K. Behera, Advocate (for
the deponent Sonia Tripathy)
For Opposite : Mr. M.R. Patra, Addl. PP
Party Mr. S.K. Sarangi, Sr. Advocate
(for the informant)
CORAM:
JUSTICE G. SATAPATHY
DATE OF HEARING & DATE OF JUDGMENT:07.03.2026 (ORAL)
(I.A. Nos. 1588 of 2024 & 80 of 2025)
G. Satapathy, J.
1. These are two IAs by the informant-Prajna Prakash Nayak in Airfield FIR No. 265 of 2021, which was subsequently renumbered as EOW P.S. Case No. 12 of 2023 with prayers for initiation of proceeding U/S. 340 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 in IA No. 1588 of 2024 against the petitioner-Rajeev Lochan Das and the deponent of BLAPL No. 3078 of 2024 namely Sonia Page 1 of 8 I.A. Nos. 1588 of 2024 & 80 of 2025 Tripathy; and IA No. 80 of 2025 against the petitioner- Rajeev Lochan Das, deponent-Mr. Maonj Kumar Mohanty(Advocate Clerk), advocate concerned-Ms. Ayushi Mehta and the corporator-Ms. Monalisa Behera who had issued a death certificate for the petitioner in I.A. No. 53 of 2025.
2. Heard Mr. Sumit Sekhar Pattnayak, learned counsel for the petitioner-Rajeev Lochan Das; Mr. Santanu Kumar Behera, learned counsel for the deponent-Sonia Tripathy; Mr. M.R. Patra, learned Addl. PP and Mr. Santanu Kumar Sarangi, learned Senior Counsel, who is being assisted by Mr. Balaram Nayak, learned counsel for the informant in the matter and perused the record.
3. On a careful scrutiny of the averments of the IA No. 1588 of 2024 and I.A. No. 80 of 2025, it appears to the Court that the informant namely Prajna Prakash Nayak has alleged against the petitioner and deponent in I.A. No. 1588 of 2024 that they have furnished false address of the petitioner in the bail application to secure relief for them and the informant has also alleged Page 2 of 8 I.A. Nos. 1588 of 2024 & 80 of 2025 against the petitioner, deponent, conducting advocate and corporator in I.A. No. 80 of 2025 for furnishing false death certificate to secure interim bail for the petitioner in I.A. No. 53 of 2025. It is further found from the record that the informant has alleged against the petitioner for making false averments in Paragraphs-7, 8, 10 & 12 of the bail application. Primarily it appears to the Court that the informant wants to proceed against the aforesaid persons U/S.340 of CrPC for furnishing false address and incorrect death certificate. Be that as it may, Mr. Santanu Kumar Sarangi, learned Senior Counsel for the informant has conceded against the deponent, advocate and the corporator in I.A. No. 80 of 2025 and leave it to the Court not to take any action against them for assisting the persons in furnishing false address in the affidavit. However, Mr. Sarangi sternly presses this Court to take serious action against the petitioner-Rajeev Lochan Das, his wife-Sonia Tripathy in I.A. No. 1588 of 2024 and against the petitioner- Rajeev Lochan Das in I.A. No. 80 of 2025 for furnishing false address and incorrect death certificate. Page 3 of 8
I.A. Nos. 1588 of 2024 & 80 of 2025
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 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 Page 4 of 8 I.A. Nos. 1588 of 2024 & 80 of 2025 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 ; 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 Page 5 of 8 I.A. Nos. 1588 of 2024 & 80 of 2025 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. Any interpretation which leads to a situation where a victim of a crime is rendered remediless, has to be discarded."
5. It is also considered by this Court that the person to be an accused in a proceeding U/S.340 of CrPC is not required to be heard before initiation of Page 6 of 8 I.A. Nos. 1588 of 2024 & 80 of 2025 proceeding which is confirmed by the Apex Court in the decision State of Punjab vs. Jasbir Singh; (2022) SCC OnLine SC 1240, wherein it has been held that there is no question of opportunity of hearing in a scenario of this nature.
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 Page 7 of 8 I.A. Nos. 1588 of 2024 & 80 of 2025 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.
8. Accordingly, both the I.As stand dismissed.
(G. Satapathy) Judge Orissa High Court, Cuttack, Dated the 7th day of March, 2026/S.Sasmal Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: SUBHASMITA SASMAL Designation: Jr. Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa Date: 08-Mar-2026 12:19:08 Page 8 of 8 I.A. Nos. 1588 of 2024 & 80 of 2025