Orissa High Court
Chakradhar Dash vs State Of Orissa And Another .... Opp. ... on 9 July, 2025
Author: Chittaranjan Dash
Bench: Chittaranjan Dash
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
CRLMC No.3034 of 2016
Chakradhar Dash .... Petitioner
Mr.
r. Ashok Mohanty, Sr. Advocate
-versus-
State of Orissa and another .... Opp. Parties
Mr. Raj Bhusan Dash, Addl. P. P.
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE
BLE MR. JUSTICE CHITTARANJAN DASH
Date of Judgment: 09.07.2025
Chittaranjan Dash, J.
1. By means of this application, the Petitioner seeks
indulgence of this Court praying to quash the order dated
15.02.2016 wherein the learned court took cognizance of the
offences under Sections 387/447/506/120-B
387/447/506/120 read with Section 34 of
the IPC implicating the Petitioner in connection with GR Case
No.815 of 2015 passed by the learned
learned JMFC, Rural Cuttack, under
Annexure-4.
2. The background facts of the case
case are that one Soumitra
Kumar Lenka of village Baghamara lodged a written report before
the IIC, Niali PS on 01.06.2015 alleging that while he was
executing the canal work at Kantapada
Kantapada Sasan, Niali on behalf of his
elder brother, Sambit Lenka by virtue of power of attorney of
Contractor, namely, Bhagaban Behera, one Chaga @ Bibekananda
Sahoo, Chagala Mallik, Satura Mallik and Alekha of Polasara
Kharighara alleged to have extended threat
threat over phone to him
repeatedly. While the matter stood thus on 31.05.2015 at around
11:30 PM, the PC 71 machine was damaged by pouring petrol and
throwing bomb. The Petitioner, who was then engaged as Assistant
Engineer of Niali Sub-Division
Sub allegedly to have
ave conspired with the
said mischief mongers in carrying out the threat and damaging the
property of the complainant in prosecution of the conspiracy held
between them. On the basis of the complaint, Police registered the
case and took up investigation. In course of the investigation, as
prima-facie
facie material was found against the Petitioner, the Final
Form was submitted implicating the Petitioner as an accused.
3. Mr. Mohanty, learned Senior Advocate assailing the
impugned order of cognizance, inter alia, submitted
submitted that the very
complaint lodged by the complainant implicating the accused in the
offence under Sections alleged are beyond imagination for the
simple reason that the case record reveals that the present Petitioner
to be the Assistant Engineer-in-Charge
Engineer rge of the concerned project
executed by the complainant. As the Officer-in-Charge,
Officer Charge, it is quite
natural for the Petitioner to pay visit to the site off and on.
on He is
also to take stock of the progress in work and to direct the
complainant to execute the work in accordance with the job
description and any laxity on the part of the complainant in the
execution of the project ought to have been guided to be taken
properly as ultimately it is the site in charge answerable for the
proper execution
on of the work within the timeline. Some of the
utterances as claimed by the complainant allegedly to have been
made by the Petitioner supporting the co-accused
accused persons is just an
a
imagination and have no relevance to the any threat gave out to the
Petitioner.. The petitioner is bound as part of his obligation towards
discharge of duty to ensure the work to be done in accordance with
work order and mere fact that the co-accused
co accused persons happened to
be from his village cannot be a ground to raise any apprehension
apprehensi as
to his association with them for any purpose whatsoever.
4. Mr.
r. Dash,
Dash learned Additional
dditional Public Prosecutor, opposed
the prayer for quashing of the cognizance order dated 15.02.2016,
submitting that the materials collected during investigation disclose
a prima facie case against the Petitioner under Sections
387/447/506/120 B read with Section 34 IPC. It is contended that
387/447/506/120-B
the allegation of conspiracy involving the Petitioner with known
miscreants is supported by the statement of the informant, as well as
the voice recordings seized and examined during investigation. The
Petitioner'ss advice to the informant to "settle
settle the matter"
matter with
mischief mongers, despite being the supervising officer, coupled
with his alleged nexus with anti-social
anti social elements, gives rise
ri to a
reasonable suspicion of collusion. It is further submitted that such
facts and circumstances cannot be brushed aside at the threshold
stage, particularly when the role of the Petitioner is yet to be tested
during trial. Ms. Mohanty also argues that the question of sanction
under Section 197 CrPC is a mixed question of fact and law, to be
decided at the appropriate stage, and that the bar under Section 197
CrPC does not preclude the court from taking cognizance where the
alleged act does not bear any reasonable nexus with the discharge
of official duty. She submits that the continuation of proceedings is
therefore not an abuse of process, and the CRLMC is liable to be
dismissed.
5. In the context of exercise of power under Section 482
Cr.P.C., the
he Hon'ble
Hon ble Apex Court in its decision in the matter of
State of Haryana and Ors. vs. Ch. Bhajanlal and Ors. reported in
335, has laid down the following guidelines:-
1992 Supp(1) SCC 335, guidelines:
"(1)
(1) Where the allegations made in the first information
report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their
face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima
facie constitute any offence or make out a case against
the accused.
(2) Where the allegations in the first information report
and other materials, if any, accompanying
accompanying the FIR do
not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an
investigation by police officers under Section 156(1) of
the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within
the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code.
(3) Where the uncontroverted allegations
allegations made in the
FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support
of the same do not disclose the commission of any
offence and make out a case against the accused.
(4) Where, the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a
cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable
cognizable
offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer
without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under
Section 155(2) of the Code.
(5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint
are so absurd and inherently
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.
(6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any
of the provisions of the Code or the concerned
concerned Act
(under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the
institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or
where there is a specific provision in the Code or the
concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the
grievance of the aggrieved party.
pa
(7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended
with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is
maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for
wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to
spite him due to private and personal grudge."
grudge.
6. Having considered the rival submissions and perused the
materials available on record, it is indeed evident that the name of
the present Petitioner does not prima facie appear to be responsible
for the alleged act of extortion, which is directed against certain
other accused persons. Similarly, no overt act constituting an
attempt to murder can be attributed to the Petitioner, nor is there
any material to suggest his involvement in the damage caused to the
machinery or other property, as is evident from the
the narration in the
FIR. The only aspect on which the Petitioner appears to have been
implicated is in relation to the alleged criminal conspiracy.
7. However, the foundation of the said allegation rests upon a
statement attributed to the Petitioner who was functioning
functioning as the
site engineer wherein he allegedly suggested to the complainant that
the matter could have been settled with the mischief mongers prior
to execution of the work. While such a suggestion may reflect
poorly on the Petitioner's
Petitioner professional judgment and his duty to
provide a secure environment for contractual execution, it cannot,
by any stretch, be construed as an act of instigation, agreement, or
active participation amounting to criminal conspiracy under Section
120-B
B IPC. At best, the statement
statement could be viewed as an imprudent
attempt to avoid confrontation or potential disruption at the work
site. Neither the FIR nor the statements of witnesses recorded under
Section 161 CrPC disclose any direct or indirect role of the
Petitioner in the commission
commission of the alleged offences. In the absence
of any substantive material indicating his complicity in the acts of
extortion, intimidation, or mischief, continuation of the criminal
proceeding against the Petitioner would amount to an abuse of the
process of law.
8. Be that as it may, this order shall not preclude the trial court
from exercising its power under Section 319 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973, in the event any evidence surfaces
during trial indicating the complicity of the Petitioner in the alleged
offence. The right of the prosecution to invoke Section 319 CrPC
cannot be curtailed merely because the cognizance taken against the
Petitioner stands quashed at the very threshold.
9. For ready reference, Section 319 CrPC postulates as follows:
follows
"319.
319. Power to proceed against other persons
appearing to be guilty of offence.--
offence.
(1) Where, in the course of any inquiry into, or trial of,
an offence, it appears from the evidence that any person
not being the accused has committed any offence for
which such
such person could be tried together with the
accused, the Court may proceed against such person for
the offence which he appears to have committed.
(2) Where such person is not attending the Court, he
may be arrested or summoned, as the circumstances of
the case may require, for the purpose aforesaid.
(3) Any person attending the Court, although not under
arrest or upon a summons, may be detained by such
Court for the purpose of the inquiry into, or trial of, the
offence which he appears to have committed.
(4)) Where the Court proceeds against any person under
sub-section
section (1), then--
then
(a) the proceedings in respect of such person shall be
commenced afresh, and the witnesses re-heard;
re
(b) subject to the provisions of clause (a), the case
may proceed as if such person had been an accused
person when the Court took cognizance of the offence
upon which the inquiry or trial was commenced."
commenced."
10. In view of the foregoing discussion, the criminal
proceeding against the Petitioner in G.R. Case No. 817 of 2015
arising out
ut of Niali P.S. Case No. 115 of 2015, pending before the
learned J.M.F.C., Rural, Cuttack, and the order dated 15.02.2016
taking cognizance of the offences under Sections 387/447/506/120-
387/447/506/120
B read with Section 34 of the IPC so far as the Petitioner is
concerned,
ned, are hereby quashed.
11. It is, however, clarified that in the event any evidence
comes on record during trial indicating involvement of the
Petitioner in the alleged offence, it shall be open to the trial court to
proceed against him in exercise of power under Section 319 CrPC.
12. The CRLMC is accordingly allowed. There shall be no
order as to costs.
(Chittaranjan Dash)
Judge
A.K.Pradhan
Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA
