Hotel Association Of Puri vs Jagannath Bastia & Another .... ... on 16 January, 2026

Author: R.K. Pattanaik

Bench: R.K. Pattanaik

           IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
AFR                        CRLREV No.384 of 2025

           Hotel Association of Puri, Puri   ....          Petitioner
                                             Mr. D. Panda, Advocate

                                  -Versus-

           Jagannath Bastia & another     .... Opposite Parties
                                  In Person (Opposite Party No.1)


                   CORAM:
                   JUSTICE R.K. PATTANAIK

                    DATE OF HEARING:16.10.2025
                   DATE OF JUDGMENT:16.01.2026


      1.

Instant revision petition under Section 442 BNSS is at the behest of the petitioner assailing the impugned order dated 6th June, 2025 passed in connection with Criminal Misc. Case No.3 of 2022 arising out of Criminal Revision No.4 of 2019 corresponding to 1.C.C. No.204 of 2017 pending in the file of learned S.D.J.M., Puri, whereby, the learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Puri declined to take action in terms of Section 340 read with Section 195(1)(b)(i) and (ii) Cr.P.C. on the grounds inter alia that such decision is erroneous and illegal and hence, the same is liable to be set aside.

2. The petitioner filed an application under Section 340 Cr.P.C. for initiation of criminal prosecution against the opposite parties with the allegation that there is deliberate manipulation vis-a-vis official guidelines of the Forest and Environment Department, Government of Odisha with regard

to Prakruti Mitra Award, 2011-12 while challenging the order of cognizance in 1.C.C. No.204 of 2017 with the allegation that there has been such fraud committed in order to obtain a stay order in the revision. According to the petitioner, the opposite parties deliberately incorporated a non-existent clause in the guidelines for Prakruti Mitra Award, 2011-12 inconsistent with the guidelines issued by the State Government and it was to misguide the Court in seisin over the matter exercising the revisional jurisdiction against the order of cognizance dated 19th January, 2019 in 1.C.C. No.204 of 2017 and thereby committed the offences alleged. The said application was disposed of by the learned Court below vide Annexure-1 and rejected the same, refusing to initiate any such criminal prosecution against the opposite parties on the premise that there is no any offence to have been committed and hence, Section 195 (1)(b)(i) and (ii) Cr.P.C. is not attracted for the fact that no such offence is alleged in respect of a document produced or given in evidence in a proceeding pending before it. Being aggrieved of, the petitioner questioned the legality of the impugned order dated 6th June, 2025 at Annexure-1 in the instant revision with the pleading on record that the relevant clause in the official guidelines was distorted and falsely represented before the learned Court below.

3. Heard Mr. Panda, learned counsel for the petitioner and opposite party No.1 in person. Notice to opposite party No.2 was dispensed with by its order dated 16th October, 2023.

4. Mr. Panda, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the impugned order at Annexure-1 dismissing the

application under Section 340 read with Section 195 (1)(b)(i) and (ii) Cr.P.C. is not tenable in law. It is contended that the learned court below failed to apply its judicial mind to the application and denied any such criminal prosecution against the opposite parties when on a bare perusal of the official guidelines with reference to the lower court record found to have been forged with the insertion of a clause, which never existed. It is further contended that there has been deliberate misrepresentation from the side of the opposite parties with respect to the guidelines for Prakruti Mitra Award, 2011-12 with a word omitted therefrom and as a result, misled the learned court below in the revision proceeding filed against the order of cognizance in 1.C.C. Case No.204 of 2017. The further contention is that no documents or any such official guidelines in support of the averments made in the revision filed before the learned Court below is available and especially with regard to a provision referred to as Clause 12(g) and hence, for such false assertion in exercise of jurisdiction under Section 340 read with Section 195 (1)(b)(i) and (ii) Cr.P.C., action should have been initiated against the opposite parties but the same has not been entertained, rather, dismissed vide Annexure-1 and it is on an erroneous conclusion that no such offence to have been committed in respect of document produced or given in evidence in the proceeding and Section 195 Cr.P.C. is not attracted and therefore, such decision dated 6th June, 2025 as at Annexure-1 deserves to be set at naught followed by a consequential direction issued.

5. On the contrary, opposite party No.1 would submit that there is no any false assertion or evidence produced before the

learned court below and whatever has been stated and averred in the revision petition while challenging the order of cognizance is in relation to a clause of the official guidelines and the same is to the effect that no village or organization being awarded once shall be nominated again within next five years. Furthermore, the submission of opposite party No.1 is that the Prakruti Mitra Award, 2011-12 has been received by the Beach Protection Council of Odisha, a registered Society and him having no role to play therein and such award is given on the recommendation of the Collector, Puri on the basis of a field inquiry report of the Selection Committee constituted by the District Environment Society. It is contended that the relevant clause mentioned in the official guidelines was reproduced without any distortion and therefore, under such circumstances, as there has been no manipulation on record, the learned court below did not commit any error or illegality in dismissing the application filed under Section 340 Cr.P.C moved by the petitioner.

6. In course of hearing, opposite party No.1 filed a memo of citations taken on record with the submission that he has been harassed by the petitioner being a social worker, an activist and a reporter of a daily newspaper 'The Samaj' for Puri edition. It is claimed by opposite party No.1 that he has received best Journalist Award for the year 2011-12 for impartial reporting and significant contribution in the field of journalism. It is further claimed that he filed W.P.(C) No.12564 of 2006 for eviction of illegal encroachment from the Puri sea beach area for the petitioner having violated the building and environmental norms. According to opposite

party No.1, he on behalf of the Beach Protection Council of Odisha filed a complaint before the Principal Accountant General (Audit & Establishment) Odisha, Bhubaneswar and Director-cum-Additional Secretary, Tourism Department, Government of Odisha in the year 2016 for special audit and vigilance inquiry into the misappropriation of Government fund by the office bearers of the petitioner and in retaliation, the complaint in 1.C.C. Case No.204 of 2017 was filed before the court of learned S.D.J.M., Puri making therein false and fabricated allegations with an intention to criminally prosecute him and therein, the order of cognizance has been passed on 19th January, 2019. Against the aforesaid background, it is pleaded by opposite party No.1 that the decision of the learned court below vide Annexure-1is not to be interfered with, as there has been no such manipulation of record or false assertion made in Criminal Revision No.4 of 2019.

7. If a Court is of the opinion that it is expedient in the interest of justice that an inquiry should be made into any offence referred to in Section 195(1)(b) Cr.P.C., which appears to have been committed in relation to a proceeding before it in respect of a document produced or given in evidence in such proceeding, after preliminary inquiry, recording a finding to that effect, it may make a complaint in writing before a court having jurisdiction in order to criminally prosecute the accused alleged to have committed such offence in exercise of power conferred under Section 340 Cr.P.C. On a reading of the aforesaid provision, it is understood that upon fulfillment of the following conditions, such as the accused having given false affidavit in a proceeding before the court and that it is

expedient in the interest of justice to make an inquiry against such person in relation to the offence committed by him, jurisdiction thereunder may be invoked. In an inquiry under Section 340 Cr.P.C., irrespective of the result of the original case, a decision shall have to be taken by the Court as to whether a prima facie case is made out, which may have a reasonable likelihood of establishing a particular offence to have been committed and that it is also expedient in the interest of justice to take action against the offender. In so far as the Section 195 Cr.P.C. is concerned as per sub-section (1) thereof and clause (a) thereto, a complaint shall have to be filed by the public servant and as per Clause (b), for all such offences specified therein, a complaint is to be filed before a Court. In the case at hand, the opposite parties are alleged of having committed an offence under Section 193 I.P.C. besides other offences for being responsible with a false averment in the revision petition filed before the learned court below stating therein regarding a clause introduced, which is non-existent. According to the petitioner, no such clause is available in the official guidelines and the one referred to in the revision petition by the opposite parties has been distorted. Is it a case wherein the alleged offences have been committed and for that, the opposite parties are to be criminally prosecuted?

8. Out of the citations referred to by opposite party No.1, the Apex Court in Sachida Nand Singh and Another Vs. State of Bihar and another (1998) 2 SCC 493, it has been held and observed that the scope of preliminary inquiry envisaged in Section 340 Cr.P.C. is to ascertain whether any offence affecting administration of justice has been committed

in support of a document produced in court or given in evidence in a court proceeding in that court, which means the offence should have been committed during the time when the document was in custodia legis. A similar view has been expressed in Iqbal Singh Marwah and another Vrs. Meenakshi Marwah and another (2005) 4 SCC 370. Apart from the above decisions, opposite party No.1 placed reliance on the following case laws, such as, S.P. Chengalvaraya Naidu (Dead) By LRS Vrs. Jagannath (Dead) By LRS and others (1994) 1 SCC 1; Dalip Singh Vrs. State of Uttar Pradesh and others (2010) 2 SCC 114 and State of Haryana and others Vrs. Bhajan Lal and others 1992 Supp. (1) SCC

335. In S.P. Chengalvaraya Naidu case, the Apex Court held that the Courts of law are meant for imparting justice between the parties and whosoever knocks the door of the Court must come with clean hands and very often, it has been experienced that process of the Court is being abused and therefore, anyone whose case is based on falsehood, has to be summarily thrown out at any stage of litigation. In Dalip Singh (supra), the Apex Court held that a litigant, who attempts to pollute the stream of justice or touches the pure fountain of justice with tainted hands, is not entitled to any relief. The other decision in Bhajan Lal (supra), the Apex Court laid down the guidelines for consideration while exercising power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. including the one where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with malafide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wrecking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge. Referring to the above case laws,

opposite party No.1 alleges that he and opposite party No.2 are being harassed by the petitioner particularly for his fearless journalism having questioned the flouting of Government guidelines on environmental law and action against the latter even for misappropriation of Government fund by its office bearers. It has been further alleged that the petitioner has not approached this Court in clean hand and filing of such an application under Section 340 Cr.P.C. is based on falsehood and therefore, in view of the decisions referred to and cited hereinabove, as no any offence has been committed with manipulation or inclusion of a clause to be non-existent, the decision of the learned court below is perfectly justified.

9. Recorded the submission of Mr. Panda, learned counsel for the petitioner, who reiterates facts pleaded to contend that the relevant clause stands distorted, clear and apparent on the face of record and therefore, it was the bounden duty of the learned court below to take action under Section 340 Cr.P.C. That apart, a non-existent clause is mentioned in the revision petition with no explanation coming forth from the side of opposite party No.1, hence, a prima facie was made to criminally prosecute him and therefore, the impugned order dated 6th June, 2025 at Annexure-1 deserves to be set at naught.

10. In case of a false declaration before a Court in a proceeding, an offence punishable under Section 193 I.P.C. may be said to have been committed. The gist of the offence is for leading or fabricating false evidence intentionally. Law is well settled that a false statement alone is not sufficient to

criminally prosecute someone for an offence punishable under Section 193 I.P.C. as intention or mens rea must also be present as held by the Apex Court in K. Karunakaran Vrs. T.V. Eachara Warrier and another (1978) 1 SCC 18. It is also held by the Apex Court in K.T.M.S. Mohd. and another Vrs. Union of India (1992) 3 SCC 178 that contradictory averments at two different stages in a judicial proceeding is not by itself always sufficient to justify prosecution but it must be established that the deponent has been intentionally given a false statement or fabricated evidence for the purpose of being used in any stage of the judicial proceeding and a prosecution should be initiated only if it is expedient in the interest of justice. A reference may be had to one more decision in Madras High Court Advocates' Association Vrs. Dr. A.S. Anand, Hon'ble CJI & another (2001) 3 SCC 19.

11. The essential ingredients of an offence punishable under Section 193 I.P.C. is that the accused made a false declaration and he was legally bound to state the truth and the same has been made in a stage of the judicial proceeding and that, such statement on declaration so made was false and he knew it to be false or believed it to be false or did not believe it to be true and in that regard, the false statement was made intentionally. In the case at hand, the learned court below proceeded on the premise that it is nobody's case that an offence as enumerated in Section 195 (1)(b)(i) and (ii) Cr.P.C. was committed in respect to official guidelines for Prakruti Mitra Award after it was produced by the opposite parties and hence, dismissed the application under Section 340 Cr.P.C. The conclusion of the learned court below is that as there is no offence committed in

respect of any document produced in Court or given in evidence during the proceeding, action against the opposite parties does not lie. According to the petitioner, there have been false averments by the opposite parties before the learned court below and it was a distortion with a relevant clause of the official guidelines which is read as no village or organization being awarded once shall be nominated again within next five years. It is alleged that a particular word was left out while reproducing the same in para-13 of the revision petition filed before ethe learned court below and it was to deceive the Court intentionally and that apart, the one mentioned therein never existed. The allegation against the opposite parties is that they have taken advantage of a non-existent clause in the official guidelines for Prakruti Mitra Award, 2011-12 with false averments made in the revision petition before the learned court below.

12. The Court is alive to the law enunciated by the Apex Court in the decisions discussed hereinbefore. If any offence has been committed and the same is to affect administration of justice and such is the conclusion reached at after a preliminary enquiry held under Section 340 Cr.P.C. in respect of any evidence produced or led in a judicial proceeding, a criminal prosecution is to be initiated against the accused found responsible for the same. Admittedly, herein, it is not in respect of a document that was produced before the court below and the same to have been manipulated by the opposite parties. In other words, no such offence has been committed by the opposite parties in respect of a document when it was in the custody of the learned court below. The allegation is to the

extent that the averments in the revision petition filed before the learned court below are false as it mentioned a non-existing clause and that too, with a distortion of the provision. The petitioner alleges that clause-4(d) of the official guidelines while being translated into Odia and reproduced and referred to in the revision petition filed before the learned court below, it has been distorted as it was not correctly framed excluding therefrom, a particular word, hence, therefore, the opposite parties are guilty of having made a false declaration before a Court of law. The relevant clause reads as 'kounasi grama kimba swechhasebi anusthana prathama puraskar praptira pancha barsa bhitare dwitiya bara puraskar paine jogya bibechita hebe nahin' and the word underlined above was excluded and it was an intentional act to defraud the court, as is alleged by the petitioner. The Court considering the averments in the revision petition filed before the learned court below with reference to the relevant clause is of the humble view that with any such exclusion of a particular word from it does make out a case for having a false declaration from the side of the opposite parties. If there is any error in describing the relevant clause therein and for having left out a word therefrom by itself cannot be considered to be a case of false declaration made by the opposite parties. Furthermore, the intention is also to be gathered as to whether any such averments alleged to be false was made and if it has influenced the decision of the Court.

13. The petitioner has filed the complaint in 1.C.C. Case No.204 of 2017 against the opposite parties and admittedly therein, the learned SDJM, Puri has taken cognizance of the alleged offences, legality of which, is questioned in the

revision before the learned court below. But, for the averments in the revision petition vis-à-vis the official guidelines and the relevant clause therein, the Court is of the conclusion that it cannot be said to be a case of false representation or misrepresentation or a false declaration made to the Court. The selection of opposite party No.1 is believed to be questioned by the petitioner and in that connection, the complaint in 1.C.C. Case No. 204 of 2017 has been filed. Notwithstanding the above, but for the averments in the revision petition, the Court is of the view that the opposite parties cannot be said to have falsely represented a fact not in existence and beyond the clause. The exclusion of a word from the clause in question, even if, wrongly referred to in the revision petition before the learned court below does not lead to any inference that it was with a malafide intention and/or to benefit out of the same when the challenge relates to the order of cognizance in 1.C.C. Case No. 204 of 2017.

14. One of the conditions to exercise jurisdiction under Section 340 Cr.P.C. is that a criminal prosecution is to be levied only upon considering the intention of the person alleged of any offence committed and referred to Section 195 (1)(b) Cr.P.C and that, the same is also necessary in the administration of justice. Having regard to the facts pleaded on record and citations referred to hereinbefore, the Court is inclined to hold that the learned court below rightly refused an action against the opposite parties and declined to exercise the power under Section 340 Cr.P.C. though for a different reason. The conclusion of the Court is that intention of the opposite parties was not to mislead the learned court below with any

such distortion vis-a-vis the relevant clause. Even exclusion of a particular word from the clause with any such averments made before the learned court below does not appear to be intentional. According to the Court unintentional error in a pleading on record cannot be the basis to criminally prosecute the opposite parties. Such omission of a word from the clause while describing the same in the revision petition before the learned court below ifso facto not sufficient to take action under Section 340 Cr.P.C. and therefore, the impugned order dated 16th June, 2025 of the learned court below calls for no interference as it does not suffer from any legal infirmity.

15. Accordingly, it is ordered

16. In the result, the revision petition stands dismissed.

(R.K. Pattanaik) Judge Balaram

Designation: PERSONAL ASSISTANT