Orissa High Court
Gopal Krushna Mohanty vs State Of Odisha And Another ....... Opp. ... on 5 May, 2025
THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
CRLMC No.2844 of 2024
(In the matter of an application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973)
Gopal Krushna Mohanty ....... 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 01.01.2021 passed by the learned SDJM, Keonjhar in G.R.
Case No.1211 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 IIC,
Nayakote Police Station does not disclose any material sufficient to
justify charges alleged in proceeding against the petitioner.
2. Heard Mr. Banshidhar Satapathy, 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
Gopal Krushna Mohanty, a qualified graduate holding a Bachelor of
Science and a Bachelor of Education (B.Ed.) degree, had applied for the
post of Sikhya Sahayak (Junior Teacher - Contractual). After due
verification of his educational credentials, he was appointed to the post
vide Order No.188 dated 31.03.2018 issued by the Collector-cum-Chief
Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Keonjhar, and was posted at
Kushakala UGUP School, Banspal.
While serving in the said capacity, the petitioner was disengaged
from service vide letter No.2546 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 him, 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, Banspal, on 03.09.2020 at Nayakote Police Station continues the
proceedings. The relevant part of letter of the BEO, Banspal to the IIC,
Nayakote Police Station reads as under::
"In inviting a kind reference to the subject cited above, as
directed I would like to bring to your kind notice that one
Sri Gopal Krishna Mohanty S/O, Panchanana Mohanty now
residing At-Paljamakunda, Po-Jamakunda District-
Balasore Pin-756026, Mobile Contact Number-
9668026236, who was recruited as Junior teacher
(Contractual) as engaged as such w.e.f. 07.04.2018. F.N. at
Kushakala UGUPS under the BEO Banspal vide
engagement order No.188/ZP Dt.31.03.2018 of the
Collector-Cum-CEO Zilla Parishad, Keonjhar.
Sri Mohanty accordingly has completed of 02 years 04
months and 03days continuous and satisfactory engagement
as Junior Teacher (Contractual) Sri Mohanty in the said
School till date.
That in the meanwhile the District Project Officer,
Samagrah Sikshya, Keonjhar by virtue of his letter
No.1855/PED/27.08.2020 has instructed to lodge an F.I.R.
against Sri Mohanty since he has obtained a fake B.Ed.
Certificate from "Bundelkhand University" which was
submitted by him at the time of his first engagement as
Page 3 of 13
Junior Teacher (Contractual). The copy of the Certificate is
enclosed herewith as Annexure-l for your kind reference."
As mentioned in the FIR, basing on the said letter, Nayakote P.S. Case
No. 52 of 2020 was registered under Sections 420, 468, and 471 of IPC.
After investigation, the I.O. submitted the Charge Sheet No. 01 dated
26.12.2020 blissfully ignoring the clarification letter issued by the
University. The charge sheet contains the following conclusive remarks.
" THAT ON THE WRITTEN REPORT OF COMPLT BEO
BANSAPAL UNDER NAYAKOTE PS THE ABOVE NOTED
CASE WAS REGD AND SELF TOOK UP ITS
INVESTIGATION. DURING COURSE OF
INVESTIGATION I HAVE VISITED THE SPOT,
EXAMINED THE COMPLT AS WELL AS WITNESSES
AND RECORDED THEIR STATEMENT U/S161 CRPC. I
HAVE SEIZED THE ORIGINAL SERVICE IN RESPECT
OF THE ACCUSED FROM BEO OFFICE AND
EXAMINED THE CHANCE WITNESSES. SERVED
NOTICE TO THE ACCUSED AS THE PUNISHMENT IS
LESS THAN 07YRS TO ASSIST DURING MY
INVESTIGATION. SUBMITTED FCR TO SP KEONJHAR
AND OBTAINED ORDERS. THE INVESTIGATION OF
THE CASE HAS BEEN COMPLETED AND PRIMAFICE
EVIDENCE WELL MADE OUT AGAINST THE ACCUSED
GOPAL KRISHNA MAHANTY (36YRS) S/O PANCHANAN
MAHANTY OF VILLAGE PALJAMKUNDA, P.S BALIPAL,
DIST BALASORE A/PJUNIOR TEACHER UGUP SCHOOL
KUSHAKALA UNDER NAYAKOTE PS.DIST KEONJHAR, I
SUBMITTED CS NO01 DT2612.2020 U/S 420/468/471 IPC
TO FACE HIS TRAIL IN THE COURT OF LAW."
On bare reading of the charge sheet it can be safely inferred that the
charge sheet is completely ambiguous and the culmination of completely
Page 4 of 13
non application of mind. However, on receipt of the charge sheet, the
learned SDJM, Keonjhar passed the following order taking cognizance
of the offences on 01.01.2021:
" The case record is put up today on receipt of CS from IIC,
Nayakote PS vide C.S. No. 1, dt. 26.12.2020 u/s
420/468/471 IPC against the accused person Gopal
Krushna Mohanty, S/o- Panchanana Mohanty, Vill.-
Paljamukunda, PS- Baliapal, Dist.- Balasore.
Perused the case record i.e FIR, CDs, F.F., Statement of
witness recorded u/s 161 CrPC, F.F. statement of witnesses
recorded 161 CrPC and other material available in this
case. There is prima facie material to proceed in this case
u/s-420/468/471 IPC. Hence cognizance of offence
punishable u/s 420/468/471 IPC is taken. The accused
person not arrested served to 41(A) Notice. 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.
Page 5 of 13
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.
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
Page 6 of 13
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 PANCHANAN B.Ed 2014 078604276 PASS CORRECT &
KRUSHNA MOHANTY GENUINE
MOHANTY
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 SAHANI RAMESH CH. B.Ed 2014 213695 PASS CORRECT &
SAHANI GENUINE
5 SUJIT KUMAR GANESH CH. B.Ed 2013 074627687 PASS CORRECT &
MOHANTY MOHANTY GENUINE
6 SUNITA DATTA NISHAKAR DATTA B.Ed 2013 589121704105 PASS CORRECT &
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
Page 7 of 13
eyes while dealing with the issue in lis to take into consideration the
letter dated 07.09.2020.
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.35871 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 he 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-5 and 6 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."
Page 8 of 13
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 416 dated
08.02.2023, which is reproduced for ready reference:
"OFFICE ORDER
The Hon'ble High Court of Odisha in IA No. 16660 of 2021
arising out of W.P.C No.35871 of 2021 passed an interim
order directing stay operation of the order of
disengagement of the petitioner Gopal Krushna Mohanty
issued vide this office Letter No-2546/PED(SSRC)
dt.03.09.2021 in obedience to the interim order
Dtd.11.01.2022 passed in IA No.16660 and keeping in view
the order Dtd.15.11.2022 passed in Contempt No-6690 of
2022 Gopal Krushna Mohanty 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.35871 of 2021.
On being taken back to his/her previous engagement Gopal
Krushna Mohanty 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-
35871 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, Banspal shall allow Gopal Krushna
Mohanty to Join as JTC/JT at Kushakaia UGUPS.
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
Page 9 of 13
Writ Petition is still pending; the outcome of the same shall have bearing
on the fate of the petitioner, regarding his 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.
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
1
1992 SCC (Cri) 426
Page 10 of 13
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.
(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
Page 11 of 13
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:
"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.
2
(2023) 15 SCC 488
Page 12 of 13
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.1211 of 2020, arising out of Nayakote P.S.
Case No.52 of 2020, including the order dated 01.01.2021 regarding
taking cognizance by the learned SDJM, Keonjhar, 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
