Sudhir Kumar Panda vs State Of Odisha
2023 Latest Caselaw 10362 Ori

      IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK


                   CRLMC NO.946 OF 2023

(From an order dated 13th January, 2023 passed by the
learned S.D.J.M., Bhadrak in G.R. Case No.273 of 2020)


      Sudhir Kumar Panda
                                                ...       Petitioner

                                  -versus-

      State of Odisha
      and another                               ...       Opposite Parties



  Advocates appeared in the case through hybrid mode:


        For Petitioner:               Mr.Dayananda Mohapatra,
                                      Advocate

                                             -versus-

        For Opp.Party
        No.1:                         Mr.S.N. Das,
                                      Addl. Standing Counsel

  ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
         CORAM:

                        JUSTICE SASHIKANTA MISHRA

                                      JUDGMENT

30.8.2023.

Sashikanta Mishra,J. In the present application filed under Section

482 of Cr.P.C., the Petitioner seeks quashment of the

criminal proceedings in G.R. Case No.273/2020 of the

Court of learned S.D.J.M., Bhadrak.

2. The facts of the case are that the Opposite Party

No.2-complainant filed complaint being I.C.C. Case

No.460/2019 in the Court below which, after being

investigated under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. has been

registered as the aforementioned G.R. Case. The case

of the complainant is that after expiry of her husband

she wanted to purchase a land to construct a house

thereon. The accused-Sudhir Kumar Panda allegedly

met her and assured to arrange a land with road

facility at a reasonable price. The complainant

accepted such proposal. Subsequently, an agreement

for sale was executed and registered by the real owner

Manjulata Lenka and Subhadra Bhanja. It was

followed by execution of registered sale deed on 13th

June, 2012 for sale of a plot of land in favour of the

complainant. In the said sale deed a sketch map was

appended showing the particulars of the plot. The land

was also mutated in favour of the complainant and

R.O.R. was issued in her favour. On 25th December,

2018, when the complainant went to the spot for

construction of building and discussed with the local

persons, she found that there was no road as

mentioned in the sale deed. When the complainant

brought up this matter with the Petitioner, he assured

that an approach road would be available in March,

2019. Despite expiry of said period and on repeated

requests, the Petitioner failed to keep his promise. On

8th December, 2019 at about 5 P.M. when the

complainant and another person met the Petitioner

and other accused persons and asked about the road,

he abused her in obscene language and also assaulted

her by giving slaps and kicks to her. He also pulled the

saree of the complainant causing her to be half naked

and threw a stone at her head which luckily missed

her. He also snatched away her hand bag wherein

Rs.570/- was kept. On the same day the complainant

lodged a written complaint at the Bhadrak Rural P.S.,

but on 15th December, 2019, the I.I.C. refused to take

any action and suggested to file a case against the

accused persons. The complaint being registered as

I.C.C. Case No.460/2019 was forwarded by the learned

S.D.J.M. to the I.I.C. of Bhadrak Rural P.S. to register

a case and to investigate into the allegations.

Pursuant to such direction, Bhadrak Rural P.S. case

No.92/2020 was registered under Sections

420/294/323/354 /506/34 of I.P.C. After completion

of investigation charge sheet was submitted only

against the present Petitioner under the

aforementioned Sections of I.P.C. Subsequently, the

Court below took cognizance of the offences and charge

was also framed for the aforementioned offences.

3. Heard Mr. D. Mohapatra, learned counsel for the

Petitioner, and Mr. S.N.Das, learned Addl. Standing

Counsel for the State. The complainant was

impleaded as an Opposite Party No.2 and notice was

issued, which was validly served upon her on 30th

March, 2023 as evident from the A.D. received by the

Office. Further, repeated opportunities were given for

appearance of the Opposite Party No.2, but for the

reasons best known, she chose not to appear.

4. Mr. D. Mohapatra would argue that firstly, the

dispute as per the complaint averments is clearly civil

in nature and therefore, the criminal proceeding

cannot be allowed to continue. Secondly, the

allegations made in the complaint petition are so

inherently improbable that no prudent person would

ever accept the same. Amplifying his argument, Mr.

Mohapatra would submit that the sale transaction took

place in the year 2012, consequent upon which title

passed to the vendee(complainant) on payment of

consideration amount and possession was also

delivered. The complainant also mutated the land in

her favour and obtained R.O.R. It is therefore, entirely

unbelievable that she would not have visited the land

purchased by her for as long as six years after such

purchase despite residing in the same locality.

5. Per contra, Mr. S.N.Das, learned Addl. Standing

Counsel, would argue that only because a case

involves both civil and criminal disputes, the

proceedings cannot be quashed. Referring to the

complaint petition, Mr. Das would argue that even

otherwise there are specific allegations that the

Petitioner abused and assaulted the complainant and

also attempted to outrage her modesty, which are

purely criminal acts.

6. I have perused the complaint petition carefully

and the statements of the complainant and other

witnesses recorded by the I.O. under Section 161 of

Cr.P.C. It is undisputed that the sale transaction took

place way back on 13th June, 2012. A copy of the sale

deed has been enclosed to the petition as Annexure-1.

The recitals of the sale deed clearly reveal that the

venders conveyed title to the vendee on that date and

acknowledged her title thereupon by delivering

possession. The schedule of the sale deed mentions the

particulars of the plot sold including its boundaries. A

sketch map is also appended to the sale deed. It is

clearly mentioned in the sale deed that there is a road

on the northern side of the plot, which is said to be a

private road and the same is also shown in the sketch

map.

7. Be that as it may, this Court finds sufficient

force in the submission of Mr. Mohapatra that having

purchased the land after due verification, the

complainant would not have noticed the absence of a

road on the northern side as mentioned in the sale

deed for as long as six years. If this is accepted, it

would suggest an absurd proposition that being

interested to purchase a land to construct a house

thereon to facilitate higher study of her children, the

complainant would not step on the land for as long as

six years. Even otherwise, the Petitioner is not the

vender but had supposedly facilitated the sale. There is

nothing in the sale deed to show that he had either

identified the land to the complainant or stated about

the presence of road on the northern side of the land

prior to the sale transaction. This is all the more

significant in view of the fact that the complainant is

also a resident of the same locality i.e. Samaraipur in

the district of Bhadrak. Thus, the basic allegation of

the Petitioner falsely inducing the complainant to buy

the land on the assurance that a private road exists on

the northern side appears to be inherently improbable.

In any case, the grievance of the complainant, if any,

can be against the vendor/vendors but not the

Petitioner, who may have played the role of a facilitator

in the transaction. It would be apposite at this stage to

refer to the opt quoted decision of the Apex Court in

the case of State of Haryana and others vs. Ch.

Bhajan Lal and others; 1993 Supp (1) SCC 335,

wherein it was held that a criminal proceeding can be

quashed, inter alia, on the following ground;

"where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused."

8. As to the contentions raised by learned State

counsel that the complaint contains allegations of

criminal acts such as abuse, assault, outraging of

modesty, theft etc., this Court is of the considered view

that the basic allegation is itself unbelievable and such

being the case there would be no occasion for the

Petitioner to do such acts as alleged. Even assuming

for the sake of argument that there was some sort of

interaction between the Petitioner and the complainant

7 years after the sale transaction, it would not stand to

reason as to why he, being the facilitator only, would

take upon himself the responsibility of arranging a

road as mentioned in the deed instead of relegating the

complainant to the vendors. The case diary contains a

copy of a diary allegedly belonging to the complainant

which shows payment of some money on some

occasions to one Bidya Babu and Panda Babu. The

Petitioner-Sudhir Kumar Panda also allegedly signed

on such diary. This Court however, observes that even

accepting the said document as genuine, in the

absence of any other particulars showing the reason

for payment of the amounts to the Petitioner and the

other person, the same cannot be treated as a

conclusive proof of payment of money to the Petitioner

for facilitating the sale transaction. The only thing that

shows the involvement of the Petitioner in the sale

transaction appears to be an agreement entered into

by the Petitioner and Bidyadhar Sahu with the

complainant on 23rd July, 2011 to the effect that on

payment of Rs.10,000/- by the complainant they

would arrange a plot of land for her to buy. Recitals

of the agreement only contains reference to the plot

numbers, which were ultimately sold to the

complainant but nothing has been mentioned as

regards the availability of road or otherwise. Thus,

there is no way by which the prosecution case can be

accepted as against the Petitioner.

9. For the foregoing reasons therefore, this Court is

of the considered view that the allegations made in the

complaint are so inherently improbable that no

prudent person acting with a rational mind would

accept the same as true. Even otherwise, the grievance

of the complainant is such as can be addressed by a

Civil Court and that too, against the vendor. As such,

continuance of the criminal proceedings against the

Petitioner would definitely amount to an abuse of the

process of the Court and therefore, warrants

interference by this Court in exercise of its inherent

power.

10. In the result, the CRLMC succeeds and is

therefore, allowed. The proceedings in G.R. Case

No.273/2020 of the Court of learned S.D.J.M.,

Bhadrak as against the present Petitioner are hereby

quashed.

..................................

                                                                           (Sashikanta Mishra)
                       Ashok Kumar Behera                                        Judge




Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: ASHOK KUMAR BEHERA

Designation: A.R.-CUM-SR.SECRETARY Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 31-Aug-2023 11:09:24