Pradeep Kumar Samal vs State Of Odisha And Another
2023 Latest Caselaw 629 Ori

        IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
                     CRLMC No.3221 of 2015

  Pradeep Kumar Samal                      ....               Petitioner
                                           Mr. Jaydeep Pal, Advocate


                                -Versus-


  State of Odisha and Another              ....     Opposite Parties
                                               Mr. P.K.Rout, AGA
                     Mr. P.K.Mohanty, Senior Advocate for OP No.2


            CORAM:
            JUSTICE R.K. PATTANAIK

              DATE OF JUDGMENT:19.01.2023

1.

Instant petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is at the behest of the petitioner for quashing of the F.I.R. dated 4th July, 2015 with respect to Purighat P.S. Case No. 94 of 2015 corresponding to G.R. Case No. 1138 of 2015 pending in the file of learned SDJM Sadar, Cuttack on the grounds inter alia that no case is made out disclosing commission of a cognizable offence justifying investigation and also for the reason that the prosecution is launched maliciously for wrecking vengeance.

2. Heard Mr.J.Pal, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. P.K.Rout, learned AGA for the State and Mr. Mohanty, learned Senior Advocate appearing for opposite party No.2.

3. In fact, on the basis of a report lodged by the Additional Commissioner, Cuttack Municipality Corporation, Purighat P.S. Case No. 94 of 2015 was registered under Sections 409,468,471 and 420 IPC which corresponds to G.R. Case No. 1138 of 2015. As per the F.I.R. dated 4th July 2015, the informant received a lawyers' notice

Pradeep Kumar Samal Vrs. State of Odisha and Another

from one Dipak Ranjan Behera alleging therein that an amount of Rs.33,000/- was received by the petitioner as the Caretaker towards reservation of Kalyan Mandap which was cancelled on 28th April, 2015 but an amount of Rs.5,000/- received as security was refunded and not the booking amount of Rs. 28,000/-. According to the F.I.R., on enquiry the receipt was found to be a forged and fabricated one. With the above claim when the lawyer's notice was received, the informant proceeded to lodge the report.

4. Mr. Pal, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that a procedure is prescribed for reservation of Kalyan Mandap applied through an application which is put up before the Deputy Secretary, CMC for approval and thereafter, the booking amount is received and similarly for cancellation, subject to the terms and conditions, a process is followed and the refund is allowed with the amount varied from case to case depending on the time of cancellation. It is contended that the security deposit was refunded which the petitioner had the authority but for the booking amount on cancellation, it had to be routed through the Deputy Secretary, CMC. It is claimed that since the petitioner was the General Secretary of the CMC Employees Union and Odisha Municipal Employees Federation, he has been victimized by the Authority and the report was lodged without a proper enquiry into the allegation made. Under the above circumstances, it is lastly contended that even by considering the F.I.R., no prima facie case is made out against the petitioner and hence, it should be quashed.

5. Mr. Mohanty, learned Senior Advocate on the other hand referring to the objection of opposite party No.2 would submit that an amount of Rs. 33,000/- was received and fake money receipts were issued and later on, the petitioner deposited an amount of Rs. 27,855/- in the account of the CMC after 21 days of booking on 30th March, 2015

Pradeep Kumar Samal Vrs. State of Odisha and Another

and the security amount of Rs. 5000/- was never deposited rather was retained by him and the balance amount was returned not in the manner prescribed. It is further submitted that there has been a large scale fraud in the booking of Kalyan Mandap by issuing forged receipts which was enquired into and series of illegalities were detected not only against the petitioner but many others. The incriminating instances which stare at the petitioner have been drawn to the attention of the Court by Mr. Rout, learned AGA. With the above submission, it is pleaded that the F.I.R. and the investigation pending against the petitioner corresponding to Purighat P.S. Case No. 94 of 2015 since justified should not be quashed as has been prayed for. Mr. Rout, learned AGA for the State adopted the argument of Mr. Mohanty, learned Senior Advocate for opposite party No.2 and pleaded in favour of investigation with respect to the alleged mischief.

6. Along with the F.I.R. (Annexure-1), the lawyer's notice dated 26th June, 2015 and the money receipts dated 9th March, 2015 have been annexed. As per the said receipts, an amount of Rs. 20,000/- was deposited towards reservation charge and Rs. 5,000/- on caution money. It is claimed that the amount was though received but the petitioner had the authority to refund the caution money only and the person who booked the reservation was to get the refund of the reservation charge from the CMC with the approval of the Authority concerned. As per Annexure-1, the reservation was booked on 9th March, 2015 and the above amount was received which was later on cancelled on 28th April, 2015 endorsed on the money receipt as at Annexure-1. It is made to reveal from the objection of opposite party No.2 that the petitioner deposited Rs.27,855/- with the CMC on 30th March, 2015 after about 21 days of the booking, the fact which has not been disputed either. The petitioner owed an explanation as to why he had to deposit the amount if such refund was to be through

Pradeep Kumar Samal Vrs. State of Odisha and Another

the CMC as it has been claimed by him. Interestingly, a receipt dated 30th March, 2015 issued by the Municipal Commissioner, CMC is placed reliance on by the petitioner to suggest that it was at the instance of the applicant, namely, Dipak Ranjan Behera. It is being alleged that the said applicant forged the money receipt dated 9th March, 2015 to impress upon the Municipal Authority as if the petitioner manufactured the same and that an amount of Rs.27,855/- was deposited by him only which was on 30th March, 2015. With the above facts being brought to the notice of the Court, Mr. Pal, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner cannot be held responsible since no mischief was committed by him. In response to the above, the stand of the State is that said amount of Rs. 27,855/- was deposited by the petitioner after 21 days and not by the applicant as has been claimed and his involvement was detected in other cases as well.

7. As we know the settled position of law for quashing of criminal proceedings exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. which has been highlighted upon by the Apex Court in State of Haryana and Others Vrs. Ch. Bhajan Lal & Others 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335, wherein, it has been held and observed that if the allegations in the F.I.R. or complaint do not disclose a cognizable offence to have been committed; or the allegations therein to be absurd and inherently improbable; or the criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with malafide or instituted maliciously with a view to spite the accused due to private or personal grudge, such jurisdiction may be exercised. It is also equally settled that save and except the situations illustrated in the decision (supra) though not exhaustive but applicable to other cases of similar nature, inherent jurisdiction should not be exercised. In other words, only in exceptional and peculiar circumstances, such power is to be invoked and not otherwise. Applying the above

Pradeep Kumar Samal Vrs. State of Odisha and Another

standard, the Court is to examine the claim of the petitioner. As it appears, on a complaint being brought to the notice of the CMC, later to a preliminary enquiry, such a report was lodged by the informant when the money receipts were even found to be fake and forged. The defence is that an amount of Rs.27,855/- was deposited by the applicant but the same has been denied by the CMC with the allegation that it was indeed at the behest of the petitioner which was stage managed after 21 days of the booking dated 3rd March, 2015. There is no denial to the fact that a booking had taken place and for the same an amount of Rs.33,000/- was shown to have been received by the petitioner and subsequently, an amount of Rs.27,855/- was instead deposited with the CMC on 30th March, 2015 which is even less by Rs. 145/. As to the refund of Rs. 5,000/-, there is no material on record to satisfy as to if the amount was ever deposited with the CMC when the applicant claimed about its refund by the petitioner without the reservation charge. When the informant on an enquiry found the money receipts to be forged with the amount shown to have been received by the CMC and not by the Municipal Commissioner, reported the matter to the local police and accordingly, Purighat P.S. Case No. 94 dated 4th July, 2015 was registered. Prior incidents of mischief in the booking of Kalyan Mandap have also been claimed by the CMC and some materials have been placed on record. The circumstances under which the booking was made created a cloud of suspicion for which the FIR was lodged and also with regard to the alleged conduct of the petitioner, who was primarily responsible in dealing with it. In such view of the matter, it cannot, therefore, be said that no prima facie case is on record for investigation and enquiry. None of the conditions laid down in Ch. Bhajan Lal case is satisfied calling for any interference by this Court in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction as all such incriminating materials demand a thorough enquiry and investigation

Pradeep Kumar Samal Vrs. State of Odisha and Another

and therefore, rightly on a report being lodged by the informant, Purighat P.S. Case No. 94 of 2015 was registered. In other words, no case is really made out by the petitioner or any such compelling ground is shown to exist for any kind of intervention with the investigation vis-a-vis Purighat P.S. Case No. 94 of 2015 corresponding to G.R.Case No. 1138 of 2015.

8. Accordingly, it is ordered.

9. In the result, CRLMC stands dismissed. Consequently, the interim order passed in Misc. Case No.2075 of 2015 by this Court is hereby vacated.

(R.K. Pattanaik) Judge

kabita