Sundarshan Biswal vs State Of Orissa & Anr. .... Opposite ...
2025 Latest Caselaw 767 Ori

Orissa High Court

Sundarshan Biswal vs State Of Orissa & Anr. .... Opposite ... on 2 July, 2025

Author: Chittaranjan Dash

Bench: Chittaranjan Dash

        IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
                     CRLMC No. 2756 of 2017

  Sundarshan Biswal             ....                         Petitioner
                                                      Mr. S. K. Baral,
                                                            Advocate

                              -versus-

  State of Orissa & Anr.        ....                Opposite Parties
                                                    Mr. G. Behera
                                                         O.P No.2
                                                  Ms. S. Mohanty
                                           Addl. Standing Counsel

                           CORAM:
  THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE CHITTARANJAN DASH

        Date of Hearing & Date of Judgment: 02.07.2025

Chittaranjan Dash, J.

1. By means of this application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the Petitioner seeks to invoke the inherent jurisdiction of this Hon'ble Court for quashing of the criminal proceeding and the order of cognizance dated 04.08.2017 passed in G.R. Case No.1017 of 2016, arising out of Satyabadi P.S. Case No.97 of 2016, by the learned S.D.J.M., Puri.

2. The background facts of the case, as gathered from the record, reveals that an FIR was lodged on 30.04.2016 at Satyabadi Police Station, alleging that on 24.04.2016 at about 11:00 A.M., while the Informant was proceeding to attend a call of nature, the Petitioner, who was allegedly hiding near the house, suddenly

caught hold of her from behind and attempted to outrage her modesty. Upon her raising a hue and cry, her husband arrived at the spot, following which the Petitioner is said to have fled. Based on the said allegations, Satyabadi P.S. Case No. 97 of 2016 was registered under Section 354 of the Indian Penal Code and after completion of investigation, a charge sheet was submitted, culminating in the learned S.D.J.M., Puri taking cognizance of the offence by order dated 04.08.2017.

3. Mr. Baral, learned counsel for the Petitioner, in the course of hearing, submitted that the entire criminal proceeding is a glaring example of malicious prosecution arising out of longstanding personal enmity between the Petitioner and the informant's family. He drew the attention of the Court to several discrepancies between the written complaint and the statements recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C., particularly that of the Informant herself, contending that the narrative lacks consistency and coherence. He pointed out that while the FIR alleges an attempt to commit rape, the charge sheet ultimately filed under Section 354 IPC does not support such a grave accusation, thereby reflecting non-application of mind by the investigating agency. Mr. Baral further emphasised that the alleged incident occurred on 24.04.2016, but the FIR was belatedly lodged on 30.04.2016 without any satisfactory explanation for the delay, raising serious doubts about the veracity of the allegations. He also submitted that the medical report does not support the prosecution's claim, as no injury was found on the informant's wrists as her bangles were broken, and that the charge sheet was filed in a mechanical manner without proper investigation. Lastly,

Mr.Baral highlighted the Petitioner's background as a disciplined government servant serving in the police department and argued that the continuation of the proceeding would cause irreparable injury to his career and reputation.

4. On the other hand, in reply, Mr. Behera, learned counsel for the Informant, contended that the delay in registration of the FIR was not attributable to any inaction on the part of the Informant, but rather due to the initial refusal by the local police to register the case. He submitted that the FIR came to be registered only after the Informant approached the Superintendent of Police and filed a written representation, which ultimately led to its formal registration. With respect to the absence of injury noted in the medical report, learned counsel argued that the nature and extent of injury, particularly in cases involving sudden acts of force, cannot always be conclusively assessed at the threshold stage. He further submitted that not every incident involving the breaking of bangles would necessarily result in visible injuries on the wrist or hand. Moreover, Mr. Behera asserted that the trauma of the incident, coupled with the delay and reluctance in registration of the FIR, subjected the Informant to severe mental distress, for which she was compelled to seek medical attention which cannot be ignored at this stage of the proceeding.

5. Ms. Mohanty, learned Additional Standing Counsel, submitted that the FIR discloses a cognizable offence under Section 354 IPC. The allegations made therein establish a prima facie case that the Petitioner used criminal force with intent to outrage the

Informant's modesty. She further stated that the delay in lodging the FIR has been reasonably explained by the counsel for Opposite Party No.2, as arising from initial police inaction. Ms. Mohanty finally contended that the veracity of the Informant's claims and the arguments made by the learned counsel for the Petitioner are matters for trial and cannot be grounds for quashing at this stage.

6. In the context of exercise of power under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the Hon'ble Apex Court in its decision in the matter of State of Haryana and Ors. vs. Ch. Bhajanlal and Ors. reported in 1992 Supp(1) SCC 335, has laid down the following guidelines:-

"(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 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 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 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 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 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.

(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."

7. Having considered the rival submissions and perused the materials available on record, the FIR lodged by the informant clearly alleges that the Petitioner, on 24.04.2016 at around 11:00 A.M., caught hold of her from behind while she was proceeding to attend a call of nature, and attempted to outrage her modesty. The incident is stated to have been witnessed by her husband, who arrived at the scene upon hearing her cries, following which the Petitioner fled. The allegations, though disputed by the Petitioner, prima facie disclose the essential ingredients of an offence under Section 354 IPC. While the defence has raised serious doubts regarding delay in FIR, medical evidence, and alleged motive arising out of enmity, these are arguments of defence and cannot be conclusively determined in a petition under Section 482 CrPC. Hence, it cannot be said that the allegations are so inherently improbable or absurd as to warrant quashing of the proceedings at this stage, as laid down in State of Haryana vs. Bhajan Lal (Supra).

It is, however, open for the Petitioner to raise all permissible legal and factual pleas at the appropriate stage, including at the stage of framing of charge or seeking discharge, in accordance with law.

8. The CRLMC is, accordingly, dismissed. Needless to state, nothing observed herein shall prejudice the rights of the Petitioner before the trial court.

(Chittaranjan Dash) Judge

K.C.Bisoi

Signed by: KRUSHNA CHANDRA BISOI