Orissa High Court
Sushanta Mohapatra And vs State Of Odisha And Another .... ... on 17 October, 2025
Author: Chittaranjan Dash
Bench: Chittaranjan Dash
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
AFR CRLMC No. 1229 of 2021
Sushanta Mohapatra and .... Petitioners
Others
Ms. P. Naidu, Advocate, Advocate
-versus-
State of Odisha and another .... Opposite Parties
Ms. S. Mohanty, Addl. P. P.
For O.P. No.1
Mr. P. C. Mohanty, (in person)
For O.P. No.2
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE CHITTARANJAN DASH
Date of Judgment: 17.10.2025
Chittaranjan Dash, J.
1. By means of this application, the Petitioners seek to quash
the order dated 08.01.2021 passed by the learned SDJM,
Berhampur, Berhampur in 1CC Case No.286 of 2020 arising out of
1CC Case No.388 of 2019 corresponding to GR Case No.1779 of
2019 wherein the learned court took cognizance of the offence
under Sections 417/420/34 of the IPC implicating them.
2. The background facts of the case are that the Informant-
Opposite Party No.2, namely Pravash Chandra Mohanty, lodged a
written report before Baidyanathpur Police Station, Berhampur,
which was registered as Baidyanathpur P.S. Case No.264 of 2019
under Section 294/341/325/500/354/417/420/506/34 of the IPC. Upon
registration of the said FIR, investigation was taken up by the
police. However, the investigating agency, having found no
substance in the allegations, submitted the Final Report attributing
the accusations to be based on mistake of fact.
Subsequently, the Informant-Opposite Party No.2 filed a
complaint petition, which was registered as I.C.C. Case No.286 of
2020. The learned court, upon observing the formalities as required
under Sections 200 and 202 of the Cr.P.C., took cognizance of the
aforementioned offences. Being aggrieved by the order of
cognizance, the Petitioners have preferred the present petition
challenging the same.
The Petitioners contend that the impugned order is
unsustainable, inter alia, because the Complainant is the elder
brother of Petitioner No.1; Petitioner No.2 is his wife; and
Petitioner No.3 is a relative of Petitioner No.1. The allegations arise
out of a family arrangement wherein Petitioner No.1 is said to have
requested the Complainant to purchase a plot of land at Nigam
Nagar, under Ankuli Mouza, Berhampur, in the name of his wife
(Petitioner No.2), with an assurance that the excess amount spent
would be refunded upon his return from work. Acting on this, the
Complainant allegedly spent Rs.1,05,000/- towards execution of
Sale Deed No.1154 of 2002 in favour of Petitioner No.2.
It is further alleged that when the Informant-Opposite Party
No.2 approached Petitioner No.1 for refund of the said amount of
Rs.1,05,000/-, Petitioner No.1 avoided repayment. Thereafter,
Petitioner No.1 is said to have suggested that the Informant-
Opposite Party No.2 sell the said property to a suitable purchaser so
that the proceeds of sale could be adjusted towards the alleged dues.
Accordingly, the Informant-Opposite Party No.2 arranged one
Manoj Kumar Sahu as a prospective purchaser for the said land
covered under RSD No.1154 of 2002, for a total consideration of
Rs.13,00,000/-.
In May 2019, the Informant-Opposite Party No.2 allegedly
received an advance of Rs.6,00,000/- towards the proposed sale and
handed over possession of the land to the prospective purchaser,
who even began construction by laying the foundation. It is then
alleged that Petitioner No.1, without informing the Informant, asked
Petitioner No.3 to find another buyer. Acting on this, Petitioner
No.3 approached the Informant, who, on 28.05.2019, paid him
Rs.3,00,000/- (Rs.1,00,000/- in cash and Rs.2,00,000/- by cheque).
Petitioner No.1 is further stated to have taken an additional
Rs.50,000/- from the Informant. Petitioner No.3 is alleged to have
assured that the Sale Deed would be executed by 31.05.2019 in
favour of an appropriate purchaser. However, on 10.06.2019,
Petitioner No.1 purportedly sent a WhatsApp message directing the
Informant not to sell the land to Manoj Kumar Sahu for less than
Rs.13,00,000/-, the original consideration. By then, the Informant
had already accepted advance money from said purchaser, who
allegedly created an unpleasant situation and subjected him to
physical and mental harassment.
It is further alleged that on 12.06.2019, the Petitioners,
along with Petitioner No.3, went to the property of the Informant in
his absence, intending to cause mischief, but could not do so as he
was on duty.
Thereafter, the Petitioners are said to have approached the I.I.C.,
Baidyanathpur Police Station, and filed a written complaint against
the Informant alleging offences under Sections 354 and 307 IPC
and allied provisions. Based on this complaint, the police
summoned the Informant, where he was allegedly abused, and upon
learning of the accusations, he became unconscious and required
treatment at MKCG Medical College & Hospital.
Subsequently, he lodged another report before the I.I.C.,
Baidyanathpur Police Station, which was treated as a mistake of
fact.
According to the Petitioners, Petitioner No.1, upon learning that a
property at Nigam Nagar, Ankuli Mouza, was available for sale,
purchased it in the name of his wife (Petitioner No.2) through Sale
Deed No.1154 of 2002. Since the vendors were employees in the
office of the Informant, he became aware of the transaction. Being
interested in buying the same property and having learnt that it
stood in the name of Petitioner No.2, he initiated the present
proceedings.
It is, therefore, submitted that the protest petition filed by
the Informant-Opposite Party No.2 after submission of the Final
Report does not disclose a prima facie case for the offences alleged
under Sections 417/420/34 IPC, and that the dispute between the
parties is purely of a civil nature which has been given a colour of
criminality with mala fide intention to harass the Petitioners.
3. Ms. P. Naidu, learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner,
inter alia, argued that it is a settled position of law that where the
averments, even if taken at their face value, do not constitute a
criminal offence, the criminal proceedings are liable to be quashed.
She further submitted that the initiation of the present criminal
proceeding amounts to an abuse of the process of law, particularly
where the dispute is purely of a civil nature and/or where a civil
dispute is sought to be given the colour of a criminal one. Referring
to the various allegations made in the protest petition, Ms. Naidu
submitted that the entire gamut of allegations pertains to a dispute
between the brothers regarding the sale and purchase of land, as
well as the expenditure incurred towards the registration of land
under RSD No.1154 of 2002. She, therefore, contended that the
non-refund of money would, in no manner, give rise to a criminal
action, and that the Informant-Opposite Party No.2 is at liberty to
recover the said amount through appropriate civil proceedings.
There is, according to her, neither any element of cheating nor any
deception made out from the allegations of the Informant-Opposite
Party No.2.
She further argued that even if the entire allegations are
taken at their face value, it would only reveal that the Informant-
Opposite Party No.2 had agreed to spend money for the execution
of the Sale Deed, which was to be refunded by the Petitioner
subsequently. The non-refund of the said amount in relation to the
Sale Deed bearing No.1154 of 2002 forms the sole basis of the
allegation, on which the learned court has taken cognizance. In
support of her contention, she placed reliance on the decisions of
the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of decisions in Anil
Mahajan vs. Bhor Industries Limited and Another, reported in
(2006) 1 SCC (Cri) 746, and Rikhab Birani and Another vs. State
of Uttar Pradesh, reported in 2025 INSC 512
4. The Informant-Opposite Party No.2, appearing in person,
vehemently supported the impugned order of cognizance. He
contended that Petitioner No.1 had deliberately induced him in
2002 to purchase land at Berhampur for Petitioner No.1's benefit,
without ever reimbursing the ₹1,05,000/- spent for the purpose. He
further alleged that during the subsequent transaction in 2019,
Petitioner No.1 again deceived him by taking ₹3,50,000/- as
advance and, in collusion with Petitioner No.3 and certain local real
estate agents, fraudulently selling the land by using forged and
fabricated documents. He also asserted that the Petitioners, with the
intent to harass, lodged an FIR against him under Sections 354 and
307 IPC. Due to the inaction of the police, he approached the
learned SDJM, Berhampur, by filing a complaint treated as a protest
petition and registered as I.C.C. Case No.388 of 2019, in which
cognizance was taken and the Petitioners were summoned.
According to him, when queried by this Court, the Petitioners could
not establish how the sale consideration for registration of the land
in the name of Petitioner No.2 had been paid, which prima facie
indicates that the amount was borne by the Informant.
He further submitted that the protest petition clearly
discloses the ingredients of offences under Sections 405 and 415
IPC, and that the learned Magistrate has rightly taken cognizance
under Sections 417, 420 and 34 IPC, warranting no interference by
this Court.
5. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Paramjeet Batra vs. State of
Uttarakhand, reported in (2013) 11 SCC 673, wherein it was held
as follows:
"While exercising its jurisdiction under Section 482 of
the Code the High Court has to be cautious. This power
is to be used sparingly and only for the purpose of
preventing abuse of the process of any court or otherwise
to secure ends of justice. Whether a complaint discloses a
criminal offence or not depends upon the nature of facts
alleged therein. Whether essential ingredients of criminal
offence are present or not has to be judged by the High
Court. A complaint disclosing civil transactions may also
have a criminal texture. But the High Court must see
whether a dispute which is essentially of a civil nature is
given a cloak of criminal offence. In such a situation, if a
civil remedy is available and is, in fact, adopted as has
happened in this case, the High Court should not hesitate
to quash criminal proceedings to prevent abuse of
process of court."
6. Further in the matter of Rikhab Birani and Another vs.
State of Uttar Pradesh, reported in 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 438, the
Hon'ble Apex Court held as follows:
"During the last couple of months, a number of
judgments/orders have been pronounced by this Court,
especially in cases arising from the State of Uttar
Pradesh, deprecating the stance of the police as well as
the courts in failing to distinguish between a civil wrong
in the form of a breach of contract, non-payment of
money or disregard to and violation of contractual terms;
and a criminal offence under Sections 420 and 406 of the
IPC, the ingredients of which are quite different and
requires mens rea at the time when the contract is entered
into itself to not abide by the terms thereof.
In Lalit Chaturvedi and Others v. State of Uttar
Pradesh and Another,1, this Court quoted an earlier
decision in Mohammed Ibrahim and Others v. State of
Bihar and Another,2 wherein, referring to Section 420 of
the IPC, it was observed that the offence under the said
Section requires the following ingredients to be satisfied:
2024 SCC Online SC 171
(2009) 8 SCC 751
"18. Let us now examine whether the ingredients of an
offence of cheating are made out. The essential
ingredients of the offence of "cheating" are as follows:
(i) deception of a person either by making a false or
misleading representation or by dishonest concealment
or by any other act or omission;
(ii) fraudulent or dishonest inducement of that person
to either deliver any property or to consent to the
retention thereof by any person or to intentionally
induce that person so deceived to do or omit to do
anything which he would not do or omit if he were not
so deceived; and
(iii) such act or omission causing or is likely to cause
damage or harm to that person in body, mind.
reputation or property."
6. Upon examination of the entire set of allegations emerging
from the case record, it appears that Petitioner No.1 and the
Informant-Opposite Party No.2, being brothers, had entered into a
transaction relating to the sale and purchase of land with the
understanding that the land would be purchased by Petitioner No.1,
for which the Informant-Opposite Party No.2 would initially incur
the expenses, which Petitioner No.1 would subsequently reimburse.
From the allegations made by the Informant-Opposite Party
No.2, it transpires that Petitioner No.1 failed to fulfil his
commitment to repay the amount of ₹1,05,000/-, allegedly spent by
the Informant-Opposite Party No.2 towards the purchase of land
registered in the name of Petitioner No.1's wife under RSD
No.1154 of 2002.
It is further alleged by the Informant-Opposite Party No.2
that, in order to discharge the liability of the aforesaid amount of
₹1,05,000/-, both brothers had agreed to sell another property;
however, due to certain differences that arose between them, and
with the intervention of Petitioner No.3 and one Manoj Kumar
Sahu, the said transaction could not be materialized. During the said
process, the Informant-Opposite Party No.2 had received an
advance amount of ₹6,00,000/-, out of which he paid ₹3,00,000/- to
Petitioner No.3 and ₹50,000/- to Petitioner No.1.
7. These very averments made by the Informant-Opposite
Party No.2 clearly indicates that he himself was an active
participant in the transaction in question. The issues regarding
refund or non-refund of money and the receipt of advance amounts
are essentially matters of civil dispute, which can only be
established through evidence during trial. There appears no material
suggesting any element of criminality in the aforesaid allegations.
8. In view of the foregoing discussion, the cognizance taken
by the learned court on the basis of the allegations made in the
protest petition does not appear to be in consonance with the settled
position of law and the facts of the case.
9. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 08.01.2021 passed
by the learned SDJM, Berhampur, Berhampur in 1CC Case No.286
of 2020 arising out of 1CC Case No.388 of 2019 corresponding to
GR Case No.1779 of 2019 suffers from legal infirmity and is
hereby quashed.
10. The CRLMC stands disposed of accordingly.
Signed by: ANANTA KUMAR PRADHAN
Judge
AKPradhan
Designation: Sr. Stenographer
Reason: Authentication
Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA
Date: 20-Oct-2025 12:08:48
