Orissa High Court
Sunita Datta vs State Of Odisha And Another ....... Opp. ... on 5 May, 2025
THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
CRLMC No.2240 of 2024
(In the matter of an application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973)
Sunita Datta ....... Petitioner
-Versus-
State of Odisha and Another ....... Opp. Parties
For the Petitioner : M/s. Banshidhar Satapathy, S. Satapathy and
B.N. Parida, Advocates
For the Opp. Parties : Mr. S.N. Biswal, Additional Standing Counsel
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE SHRI JUSTICE SIBO SANKAR MISHRA
Date of Hearing: 08.04.2025 :: Date of Judgment: 05.05.2025
S.S. Mishra, J. The present CRLMC is filed by the petitioner
under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, assailing the
order dated 11.01.2021 passed by the learned J.M.F.C., Hatadihi in G.R.
Case No.271 of 2020, whereby cognizance of offences under Sections
420, 468, and 471 of the Indian Penal Code has been taken against the
petitioner. It is contended that the charge sheet submitted by the Sub-
Inspector, Nandipada, Police Station does not disclose any material
sufficient to justify charges alleged in proceeding against the petitioner.
2. Heard Mr. Banshidhar Satpathy, learned Counsel for the petitioner
and Mr. S.N. Biswal, learned Additional Standing Counsel for the
opposite parties.
3. Prosecution case in brief devoid of unnecessary details is that one
Sunita Datta, a qualified graduate holding a Bachelor of Arts and a
Bachelor of Education (B.Ed.) degree, had applied for the post of Sikhya
Sahayak (Junior Teacher - Contractual). After due verification of her
educational credentials, she was appointed to the post vide Order No.711
dated 16.02.2015 issued by the Collector-cum-Chief Executive Officer,
Zilla Parishad, Keonjhar, and was posted at Malliposi Govt. Nodal U.P
School, Hatadihi.
While serving in the said capacity, the petitioner was disengaged
from service vide letter No.2510 dated 03.09.2021 issued by the District
Project Coordinator, (SS), Keonjhar, without affording any opportunity
of hearing and without conducting any inquiry, on the ground that the
B.Ed. certificate produced by her, purportedly issued by Bundelkhand
Page 2 of 13
University, Jhansi was found to be forged. The said disengagement was
based on a communication allegedly received from the University.
4. It is submitted that the Bundelkhand University, Jhansi,
subsequently issued letters dated 07.09.2020 and 11.11.2020,
categorically affirming and conveying that the B.Ed. certificate issued by
it was genuine. Despite this, the FIR was lodged by the Block Education
Officer, Hatadihi, on 02.09.2020 at Nandipada Police Station continues
the proceedings. The relevant part of letter of the BEO, Ghasipura to the
IIC, Nandipada Police Station reads as under:
"With reference to the subject cited above, I am to inform
you that Smt. Sunita Datta, Jr. Teacher now working at
Mallipasi NUPS. Her permanent address is Sunita Datta,
W/o-Sashikanta Jena, At-Baniapanka, Po-Padhiaripally,
Via-Dhanurjaypur, PS-Soso, Dist-Keonjhar, Mob.No-
9439560916 and Sri Sujit Kumar Mohanty, Jr. Teacher
Contractual of Soso Nodal UP School. His permanent
address is Sujit Kumar Mohanty,S/O-Ganesh Mohanty, At-
Uladi, Po-D.Nandpani, Via-Kamarda, PS-Bhogarai, Dist-
Baleswar, Mob. No.-9178158624 had produced fake B.Ed
certificates during verification.
So, as per kind order of the Collector-cum-CEO, Zilla
Parishad, Keonjhar, I am instructed to lodge FIR against
the above teachers as they have submitted forged
testimonials during verification. "
Based on the said letter, Nandipada P.S. Case No.114 of 2020 was
registered under Sections 420, 468, and 471 of IPC. After investigation,
the I.O. submitted the Charge Sheet No. 197 dated 31.12.2020 blissfully
Page 3 of 13
ignoring the clarification letter issued by the University. The charge
sheet contains the following conclusive remarks.
"On 02.09.2020 at 8.45PM on the written report of Complt.
Kshirod Kumar Tripathy, BEO, Hatadihi above noted case
was registered and investigated in to. During the course of
investigation I visited the spot, examined the complt. and
other witnesses and recorded their statements u/s 161
Cr.P.C who well proved the charge U/S 420/468/471 IPC
against the accused persons Smt. Sunita Datta (38) W/O-
Sashikant Jena of vill- Baniapank, PS- Soso, Dist- Keonjhar
and Sujit Kumar Mohanty(35) S/O Ganesh Mohanty vill
Uladi PS Bhagrai Dist Balasore seized the engagement
certificates of alleged accused Sunita Datta and Sujit
Kumar Mohanty, attendance Registers, joinnig reports,
Fake BED certificates Marksheets etc. on productions under
proper seizure list and left in zima after obtaining Xerox
copies, both the accused persons surrendered in the court
and released on bail on the same day. There is prima facie
evidence U/S 420/468/471 IPC was well made out against
both the accused persons. As there is prim facie evidence
against the alleged accused persons Smt. Sunita Datta(38)
W/O Sashikanta Jena of vill Baniapank PS Soso Dist
Keonjhar and Sujit Kumar Mohanty(35) S/O Ganesh
Mohanty vill Uladi PS Bhagrai Dist Balasore submit detail
investigation report to my honble SP Keonjhar with prayer
for full passing orde to submit C.S U/S 420/468/471 IPC the
above noted accused persons and received order and who
directed me to submit C.S U/S 420/468/471 IPC against the
above noted accused persons hence I submitted C.S Vide
C.S no. 197 Dt 31.12.20....... ..... "
On bare reading of the charge sheet it can be safely inferred that the
charge sheet is completely ambiguous and the culmination of completely
non application of mind. However, on receipt of the charge sheet, the
Page 4 of 13
learned J.M.F.C., Hatadihi passed the following order taking cognizance
of the offences on 11.01.2021:
" Received C.S. no-197, dt.31.12.2020 U/s-420/468/471
IPC against the accused persons namely (1) Sunita Dutta
(38), W/o- Sashikanta Jena, (2) Sujit ku. Mohanty(39) vill-
Uladi, P.S.-Bhograi, Dist.-Balesore perused the case
record & other connected paper. There is prima facie
offence punishable u/s-420/468/471 IPC. Hence cognizance
of offence punishable u/s-420/468/471 IPC is taken. Hand
over the case record to G.C. "
Petitioner is aggrieved by the aforementioned order and has assailed the
same in this proceeding.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the entire
proceedings is an abuse of the process of law as the basic premise of the
prosecution regarding the allegation of production of fake B.Ed.
certificate is found to be false and has been contradicted by the issuing
authority itself. The Bundelkhand University, vide its letters dated
07.09.2020 and 11.11.2020, clearly stated that the B.Ed. certificate of
the petitioner is genuine.
It is further submitted that neither the Investigating Officer nor the
court below considered these material documents, and the charge sheet is
mechanically filed without any reference to the university's clarification.
Page 5 of 13
6. It is further urged that the State has neither disputed the
authenticity of the university's letters, nor is there any material to show
that the petitioner has fabricated any certificate and on bare perusal of
the charge sheet, it is evident that it suffers from vagueness and lack of
application of mind, especially in light of the unimpeached documentary
evidence exonerating the petitioner. It would be apt to reproduce the
letters received from Bundelkhand University about the clarification
regarding the certificate in question for ready reference:
"No.BU/COF/2020-9100 Date 07/09/2020
To
The District Project Coordination
RTE-SSA, Keonjhar
Office of the DPC
Samagra Shiksha
Keonjhar 755001
Subject: Letter of modification
Sir,
This is under Ref. to this Office Letter No. BU/COF/2020/2317 dt. 29.07.2020 is
response to your letter letter for Verification of Education Certification Bearing
Letter No. 1440 dt. 20.06.2020.
In this matter, it is informed that some lapse has been revealed in the said
verification since (a) the University along with all its dept. was closed at that point of
time following a lockdown and Containment declared in the city as a result were not
available to the officer on duty (roster), (b) the Verification was made at an haste
through the available (just) later on, after reopening of the Office, the Scrutiny
revealed the lapses & it is felt necessary to recall the Verification Report with this
letter modification for your kind information & record
The result is as follows at actual.
Sl. Name S/O Course Year Roll No Result Remark
No.
1 GOPAL KRUSHNA PANCHANAN B.Ed 2014 078604276 PASS CORRECT &
MOHANTY MOHANTY GENUINE
Page 6 of 13
2 PUNYOTOYA CHAKRADHAR B.Ed 2014 6522960 PASS CORRECT &
CHAKRA CHAKRA GENUINE
3 SUBASINI DAS NAKULCH DAS B.Ed 2013 049678242 PASS CORRECT &
GENUINE
4 SWAGATIKA RAMESH CH. B.Ed 2014 213695 PASS CORRECT &
SAHANI SAHANI GENUINE
5 SUJIT KUMAR GANESH CH. B.Ed 2013 074627687 PASS CORRECT &
MOHANTY MOHANTY GENUINE
6 SUNITA DATTA NISHAKAR B.Ed 2013 589121704105 PASS CORRECT &
DATTA GENUINE
7 ARATRARAN JENA AKRURA JENA B.Ed 2013 8802578 PASS CORRECT &
GENUINE
8 DEBASIS SENAPATI JADUMANI B.Ed 2013 042503125 PASS CORRECT &
SENAPATI GENUINE
Hence, this letter supersedes the previous letter and the University regrets for the
Inconvenience caused to you and or anybody else."
The reading of the letter makes it evidently clear that the
University not only clarifies superseding its previous letter but also
expresses regret for inconvenience. It appears from the record that the
police have acted upon the letter issued by the university previously
which stands superseded by this letter dated 07.09.2020. It also appears
that the Investigating Officer didn't make any endeavour to check the
authenticity of this clarification letter. At the same time existence of this
letter is not doubted at any quarter. Hence, this Court cannot close its
eyes while dealing with the issue in Lis to take into consideration the
letter dated 07.09.2020.
Page 7 of 13
In addition to the letter dated 07.09.2020 the University have issued
another letter bearing No. BU/COF/2020/4547 dated 11.11.2020,
requesting to accept the above modification letter.
7. Even after such clarification, the removal from service wounded
the petitioner, so the Petitioner came before this Court in W.P.(C)
No.35865 of 2021 , in which this Court as an interim relief directed
staying the disengagement order. The relevant paragraphs are reproduced
herein below for ready reference:
"8. It is submitted by learned counsel for the Petitioner that
she has been disengaged from service on the ground that
she produced fake B.Ed. Certificate and Mark Sheets at the
time of selection issued by the Bundelkhand University,
Jhansi. However, the said Certificates could not be verified
due to Covid-19 situation. Learned Counsel further stated
that petitioner has filed two letters from the Bundelkhand
University under Annexures-8 and 9 of the writ petition,
whereunder the University has stated that the Certificates
issued in favour of the Petitioner are not fake.
9. In such view of the matter, as an interim measure, it is
directed that the order of disengagement of the Petitioner
dated 03.09.2021 under Annexure-1 shall remain stayed till
the next date."
Following this order the petitioner was reinstated in service by an
Office Order of the District Project Office, Samagra Sikshya (SS) &
Right to Education (RTE) Keonjhar vide Letter No 410 dated
08.02.2023, which is reproduced for ready reference:
Page 8 of 13
"OFFICE ORDER
The Hon'ble High Court of Odisha in IA No.16655 of 2021
arising out of W.P.C No.35865 of 2021 passed an interim
order directing stay operation of the order of
disengagement of the petitioner Sunita Datta issued vide
this office Letter No-2510/PED(SSRC) dt.03.092021 in
obedience to the interim order Dtd.11.01.2022 passed in IA
No.16655 and keeping in view the order Dtd.15.11.2022
passed in Contempt No-6696 of 2022 Sunita Datta Sikshya
Sahayak(JTC) is hereby taken back to his/her previous
engagement as Sikshya Sahayak (JTC) subject to final
outcome of W.P.C No.35865 of 2021.
On being taken back to his/her previous engagement Sunita
Datta is required to furnish an under taking in shape of
affidavit to the effect that he/she will abide by the final
decision of the Hon;ble High Court in W.P.C No-35865 of
2021 and also he/she will abide by all terms and conditions
of her contractual engagement as mentioned in the
Resolution No-25605/SME Dtd-26.12.2016 of Govt.in S &
ME Deptt, Odisha and such other instructions received
from the Govt./OSEPA form time to time.
On being furnished of such undertaking the Block
Education Officer, Hatadihi shall allow Sunita Datta to
Join as JTC/JT at Malliposi Nodal UPS.
By the order of Collector-cum-CEO,
Zilla Parishad, Keonjhar."
However, even after reinstatement in service the criminal
proceeding against the petitioner still continues till date. No doubt the
Writ Petition is still pending; the outcome of the same shall have bearing
on the fate of the petitioner, regarding her service. But in the absence of
any contrary documents doubting the clarificatory letter dated
07.09.2020 issued by the University the petitioner cannot be subjected to
ordeal of criminal trial.
Page 9 of 13
8. This Court is of the considered view that continuation of the
criminal proceedings against the petitioner despite the unequivocal
certification of genuineness of the alleged fake certificate by the
concerned university amounts to gross abuse of the process of law.
The law is well settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State Of
Haryana And Ors vs Ch. Bhajan Lal And Ors1, that the inherent powers
under Section 482 Cr.P.C. can be invoked to prevent abuse of the
process of the court and to secure the ends of justice, and held thus:
"102. In the backdrop of the interpretation of the
various relevant provisions of the Code under Chapter XIV
and of the principles of law enunciated by this Court in a
series of decisions relating to the exercise of the
extraordinary power under Article 226 or the inherent
powers under Section 482 of the Code which we have
extracted and reproduced above, we give the following
categories of cases by way of illustration wherein such
power could be exercised either to prevent abuse of the
process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of
justice, though it may not be possible to lay down any
precise, clearly defined and sufficiently channelised and
inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae and to give an
exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases wherein such power
should be exercised.
(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.
1
1992 SCC (Cri) 426
Page 10 of 13
(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."
Similarly, the judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mahmood Ali
v. State of U.P.2 also echoes similar principle in which it was held thus:
2
(2023) 15 SCC 488
Page 11 of 13
"13. In frivolous or vexatious proceedings, the Court
owes a duty to look into many other attending
circumstances emerging from the record of the case over
and above the averments and, if need be, with due care and
circumspection try to read in between the lines. The Court
while exercising its jurisdiction under Section 482CrPC or
Article 226 of the Constitution need not restrict itself only
to the stage of a case but is empowered to take into account
the overall circumstances leading to the
initiation/registration of the case as well as the materials
collected in the course of investigation. Take for instance
the case on hand. Multiple FIRs have been registered over
a period of time. It is in the background of such
circumstances the registration of multiple FIRs assumes
importance, thereby attracting the issue of wreaking
vengeance out of private or personal grudge as alleged."
In the case at hand, the very foundation of the prosecution is
rendered baseless in light of the subsequent clarifications issued by
Bundelkhand University. The action of the Block Education Officer in
lodging the FIR appears to be hasty and uninformed, and the police
investigation, mechanically conducted, ignored crucial exculpatory
evidence.
The cognizance order also reflects non-application of judicial
mind as the learned Magistrate failed to consider the materials
favourable to the accused which were available on record.
9. In view of the above, the criminal proceedings against the
petitioner in G.R. Case No.271 of 2020, arising out of Nandipada P.S.
Page 12 of 13
Case No.114 of 2020, including the order dated 11.01.2021 regarding
taking cognizance by the learned JMFC, Hatadihi, are hereby quashed.
10. Accordingly, the CRLMC is allowed.
......................
(S.S. Mishra)
Judge
The High Court of Orissa, Cuttack
The 5th of May, 2025/ Ashok
Signed by: ASHOK KUMAR JAGADEB MOHAPATRA
Location: High Court of Orissa
Date: 05-May-2025 19:01:11
