Anjan Kumar Sahoo vs Mrs. Ranjanbala Sahu
2021 Latest Caselaw 6755 Ori

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

           CRLREV No. 21 of 2021

 Anjan Kumar Sahoo               ....   Petitioner

                  Mr. Anjan Kumar Sahoo
                  (in person)

                      -versus-
 1. Mrs. Ranjanbala Sahu
 2. Dr. Chaitanya Sahoo
 3. Mrs. Sulochana Sahoo
 4. Mr. Ashutosh Sahu
 5. Mr. Santosh Kumar
 Sahoo
 6.Mrs. Anupama Sahoo
 7. Mr. P.K. Bisoyi, Dy.
 Superintendent of Police,
 Hindol
 8. Mr. Basanta Kumar
 Panigrahi, Superintendent
 of Police, Dhenkanal
 9. Mr. J.K. Mishra, ASI,
 HRPC Section, Dhenkanal
 10. Police Constables,
 Balimi PS
 11. Mr. Siba Charana
 Behera, IIC, Kanpur police
 station
 12.Police Constables,
 Kanpur PS, Cuttack
 13. Mrs. Sweety
 Samantaray, SDJM, Hindol
 14. Mr. Nirakara Mishra,
 Seristadar Hindol Court,
 Hindol
 15. Mr. Prasanna Kumar
 Mishra, APP, Hindol Court
 16. CSI Police Hindol
 Court, Hindol
                                   // 2 //




              17. State of Odisha
              18. State of Odisha
              19. State of Odisha
              20. The Superintendent of
              Police, Dhenkanal
              21. Mr. N. Pradhan, OPS
              22. The Superintendent of
              Police, Cuttack
              23. Mrs. Sasmita Rana,
              IIC -cum- PIO, Kanpur PS,
              Cuttack
              24. The Dy. Secretary (Hr.
              Edn), A&N Administration,
              Secretariat
              25. The Principal, Dr. B.R.
              Ambedkar Institute of
              Technology
              26. The Administrative
              Officer, Dr. B.R. Ambedkar
              Institute of Technology
              27. Union of India
              28. Other suspected
              accused persons             ....          Opp. Parties


                                 Mr. P.C. Das,
                                 Addl. Standing Counsel
                                   CORAM:

                             JUSTICE S.K. SAHOO
                                    ORDER

Order No. 01.07.2021

03. This matter is taken up by video conferencing mode.

Heard Mr. Anjan Kumar Sahoo appearing in person and Mr. P.C. Das, learned counsel for the State.

// 3 //

The petitioner Anjan Kumar Sahoo has filed this revision petition challenging the impugned order dated 22.10.2020 passed by the learned J.M.F.C., Narasinghpur in I.C.C. Case No.22 of 2020 in dismissing the complaint petition filed by him under section 203 of Cr.P.C.

The background of the case is that opposite party no.1 Ranjubala Sahu, who is the wife of the petitioner instituted a case against the petitioner for commission of offences under sections 498-A/506/34 of the Indian Penal Code and section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act which was decided by the learned J.M.F.C., Hindol in G.R. Case No.163 of 2016 vide judgment dated 11.10.2018 in acquitting the petitioner of all the charges. The petitioner then filed a complaint petition bearing I.C.C. Case No.22 of 2020 before the learned J.M.F.C., Narasinghpur against opposite party no.1 and others for commission of offence under section 500 of the Indian Penal Code and other offences. After filing the complaint petition, initial statement of the petitioner was recorded on 27.08.2020 and the learned J.M.F.C., Narasinghpur conducted inquiry under section 202 of Cr.P.C. and ten witnesses were examined during course of inquiry.

Learned J.M.F.C., Narasinghpur vide impugned order dated 22.10.2020 has been pleased to dismiss the complaint petition, the operative portion of which is quoted below:-

"The case mentioned by the witnesses has already been decided in G.R. Case No.163 of 2016 of Hindol Court, Dhenkanal. No offence is revealed

// 4 //

from this complaint petition as well as from the inquiry made, against rest of the accused persons, specifically against the complainant. The complaint alleged against the police and other officials is only doing to their duty in official capacity, which cannot be held to have been done unlawful or dereliction of duty. Further there is absence of any sanction orders against the official accused persons as required under provisions of law. No specific offence is revealed against the spouse neither from the complaint petition as well as from the inquiry. In S.N. Palanitkar -Vrs.- State of Bihar AIR 2001 SC 2960 the Hon'ble Apex Court has stated that the words sufficient ground means the satisfaction that a prima facie case was made out against the accused. There is absence of any specific offence made out against the complainant in this case as well as there is absence of any sufficient ground to proceed against the accused persons. Hence, after taking into consideration of the complaint petition as well as the inquiry, the complaint petition filed by the complainant is dismissed under section 203 of Cr.P.C."

Mr. Anjan Kumar Sahoo, the petitioner appearing in person submitted that he has received notice from the learned Sessions Judge, Dhenkanal in Criminal Appeal No.10 of 2019 which was filed by the State of Odisha challenging the judgment and order of his acquittal in G.R.

// 5 //

Case No.163 of 2016 and since there is delay in filing the appeal and he has received a copy of the delay condonation application, he intends to appear before the said Court and file objection to the delay condonation application.

Law is well settled that a Magistrate may dismiss the complaint under section 203 on three grounds. In the first place, if he, upon the statements made by the complainant and his witnesses, reduced to writing under section 200, finds that no offence has been committed; in the second place, if he distrusts the complainant and his witnesses' statements; and in the third place, if he conducts an inquiry or direct for investigation under section 202 Cr.P.C. and considering the result of the inquiry or investigation coupled with the statements of the complainant and his witnesses, he is not satisfied that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused, the Magistrate may dismiss the complaint.

Since the order of acquittal of the petitioner is under challenge before the competent Court, at this stage, it cannot be said that the opposite party no.1 or any other opposite parties have committed any act of defamation as punishable under section 500 of the Indian Penal Code or any other offences. After going through the impugned order and carefully hearing the petitioner in person, I do not find any illegality or impropriety in the order.

Accordingly, the revision petition being devoid of merits stands dismissed.

As the restrictions due to resurgence of COVID-19 situation are continuing, learned counsel for the parties

// 6 //

may utilize a printout of the order available in the High Court's website, at par with certified copy, subject to attestation by the concerned advocate, in the manner prescribed vide Court's Notice No. 4587 dated 25th March 2020 as modified by Court's Notice No. 4798 dated 15th April 2021.

( S.K. Sahoo) Judge

sisir