Orissa High Court
Sanjay Kumar Patwari vs State Of Odisha And Another on 4 May, 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
CRLMC No. 1724 OF 2023
Sanjay Kumar Patwari .... Petitioner
Mr. M.Chand, Advocate
-Versus -
State of Odisha and another .... Opposite Parties
Mr. S.N. Das,
Additional Standing Counsel
CORAM:
JUSTICE SASHIKANTA MISHRA
ORDER_
04.05.2023
Order No.
01. 1. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.
2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel
for the State.
3. The petitioner has approached this Court seeking the following
relief:-
"In the circumstances stated above, it is
humbly prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be
graciously pleased to admit the case, issue notice to
Opposite Parties and call for relevant records and
after hearing the parties be pleased to quash
criminal proceeding in 2(C)CC Case No. 93 of
2013, pending in Court of learned J.M.F.C., Barbil
and the order dated 30.08.2012 taking cognizance
under Annexure-5 against the Petitioner passed by
the learned JMFC., Barbil.
And pass such other order/orders as this
Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper;
And for this act of kindness, the petitioner
shall as in duty bound ever pray."
4. The case has been instituted on the basis of a complainant filed
by the Senior Inspector Mines, Joda being 2 (c)CC No.93 of 2012
Page 1 of 3
alleging commission of the offence under Sections 4, 21 & 23 of
MMDR Act read with Rule 12 of the OMPTS, 2007. The petitioner
has been arrayed in his capacity as the Director the complainant. It
is submitted that the entire complaint petition contains absolutely
no averment as to the role allegedly played by the petitioner in
commission of the offence. On such basis the order of the court
below dated 30.08.2012 in taking cognizance of the aforementioned
offences have been impugned in the present application.
5. Mr. Amit Pattnaik, learned counsel for the petitioner has relied
upon the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Anita Hada vs.
Godfather Travels & Tours Pvt. Ltd., reported in AIR 2012 SC
2795 wherein in a case under Section 138 of NI Act, the Apex
Court held as follows:-
"43. In view of our aforesaid analysis, we arrive at
the irresistible conclusion that for maintaining the
prosecution under Section 141 of the Act, arraigning
of a company as an accused is imperative. The other
categories of offenders can only be brought in the
drag- net on the touchstone of vicarious liability as
the same has been stipulated in the provision itself.
We say so on the basis of the ratio laid down in C.V.
Parekh (AIR 1971 SC 447) which is a three Judge
Bench decision..........."
[Emphasis Supplied]
6. The aforesaid case was followed by this Court in CRLMP
No. 317 of 2014 and batch of cases as per judgment passed on
16.02.2023
. Learned counsel for the parties agree that the present
case is squarely covered by the judgment of this Court in the
aforementioned cases.
7. Having regard to the above facts, the CRLMC is allowed. The
impugned order taking cognizance of the offences is hereby
quashed. Consequently, the criminal proceedings in 2(c)CC No. 93
of 2012 pending court of learned J.M.F.C., Barbil are also quashed.
8. The CRLMC is accordingly disposed of.
(Sashikanta Mishra)
Judge
BHIGAL Digitally signed by
BHIGAL CHANDRA
CHANDRA TUDU
Date: 2023.05.05
TUDU 20:01:48 +05'30'
B.C. Tudu
