[Cites 6, Cited by 0]

Orissa High Court

Rajeev Lochan Das vs State Of Odisha ... Opposite Party on 7 March, 2026

Author: G. Satapathy

Bench: G. Satapathy

     IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
         I.A. Nos. 1588 of 2024 & 80 of 2025
        (Arising out of BLAPL No.3078 of 2024)

   (An applications U/S. 340 of the Code of Criminal
   Procedure, 1973).

   Rajeev Lochan Das            ...     Petitioner in BLAPL
                           -versus-
   State of Odisha              ...         Opposite Party

   For Petitioner     : Mr. S.S. Pattanayak, Advocate,
                        Mr. S.K. Behera, Advocate (for
                        the deponent Sonia Tripathy)

   For Opposite       : Mr. M.R. Patra, Addl. PP
   Party                Mr. S.K. Sarangi, Sr. Advocate
                        (for the informant)
                           CORAM:
                   JUSTICE G. SATAPATHY

DATE OF HEARING & DATE OF JUDGMENT:07.03.2026 (ORAL)

        (I.A. Nos. 1588 of 2024 & 80 of 2025)
G. Satapathy, J.

1. These are two IAs by the informant-Prajna

Prakash Nayak in Airfield FIR No. 265 of 2021, which

was subsequently renumbered as EOW P.S. Case No. 12

of 2023 with prayers for initiation of proceeding U/S.

340 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 in IA No. 1588

of 2024 against the petitioner-Rajeev Lochan Das and

the deponent of BLAPL No. 3078 of 2024 namely Sonia

I.A. Nos. 1588 of 2024 & 80 of 2025 Tripathy; and IA No. 80 of 2025 against the petitioner-

Rajeev Lochan Das, deponent-Mr. Maonj Kumar

Mohanty(Advocate Clerk), advocate concerned-Ms.

Ayushi Mehta and the corporator-Ms. Monalisa Behera

who had issued a death certificate for the petitioner in

I.A. No. 53 of 2025.

2. Heard Mr. Sumit Sekhar Pattnayak, learned

counsel for the petitioner-Rajeev Lochan Das; Mr.

Santanu Kumar Behera, learned counsel for the

deponent-Sonia Tripathy; Mr. M.R. Patra, learned Addl.

PP and Mr. Santanu Kumar Sarangi, learned Senior

Counsel, who is being assisted by Mr. Balaram Nayak,

learned counsel for the informant in the matter and

perused the record.

3. On a careful scrutiny of the averments of the IA

No. 1588 of 2024 and I.A. No. 80 of 2025, it appears to

the Court that the informant namely Prajna Prakash

Nayak has alleged against the petitioner and deponent in

I.A. No. 1588 of 2024 that they have furnished false

address of the petitioner in the bail application to secure

relief for them and the informant has also alleged

I.A. Nos. 1588 of 2024 & 80 of 2025 against the petitioner, deponent, conducting advocate

and corporator in I.A. No. 80 of 2025 for furnishing false

death certificate to secure interim bail for the petitioner

in I.A. No. 53 of 2025. It is further found from the

record that the informant has alleged against the

petitioner for making false averments in Paragraphs-7,

8, 10 & 12 of the bail application. Primarily it appears to

the Court that the informant wants to proceed against

the aforesaid persons U/S.340 of CrPC for furnishing

false address and incorrect death certificate. Be that as

it may, Mr. Santanu Kumar Sarangi, learned Senior

Counsel for the informant has conceded against the

deponent, advocate and the corporator in I.A. No. 80 of

2025 and leave it to the Court not to take any action

against them for assisting the persons in furnishing false

address in the affidavit. However, Mr. Sarangi sternly

presses this Court to take serious action against the

petitioner-Rajeev Lochan Das, his wife-Sonia Tripathy in

I.A. No. 1588 of 2024 and against the petitioner- Rajeev

Lochan Das in I.A. No. 80 of 2025 for furnishing false

address and incorrect death certificate.

I.A. Nos. 1588 of 2024 & 80 of 2025

4. This Court before dwelling upon the issue on

merit considers it proper to reiterate the language of

Sec.340 of CrPC which reads as under:-

"Sec.340(1)- When, upon an application made to it in this behalf or otherwise, any Court is of opinion that it is expedient in the interest of justice that an inquiry should be made into any offence referred to in clause (b) of Sub-Section (1) of section 195, which appears to have been committed in or in relation to a proceeding in that Court or, as the case may be, in respect of a document produced or given in evidence in a proceeding in that Court, such Court may, after such preliminary inquiry, if any, as it thinks necessary;

(a) record a finding to that effect;

(b) make a complaint thereof in writing;

(c) send it to a Magistrate of the first class having jurisdiction;

(d) take sufficient security for the appearance for the accused before such Magistrate, or if the alleged offence is non-

bailable and the Court thinks it necessary so to do send the accused in custody to such Magistrate; and

(e) bind over any person to appear and give evidence before such Magistrate." xx xx xx xx xx xx xx.

A careful reading of the language as laid down

in Sec.340 of CrPC, it appears to the Court that when

the Court feels it expedient in the interest of justice to

initiate a proceeding, it can initiate such proceeding in

the nature of Sec.340 of CrPC against the persons prima

I.A. Nos. 1588 of 2024 & 80 of 2025 facie liable for the offences referred to Sec.195(1)(b) of

the CrPC, but it is not mandatory for the Court to

proceed against the aforesaid persons, inasmuch as the

language that has been used in Sec.340 of CrPC confers

discretion to initiate proceeding, if in the opinion of the

Court that it is expedient in the interests of justice that

an inquiry should be made into any offence referred to in

clause (b) of Sub-Section (1) of Sec.195 of the CrPC. In

this present case, the petitioner-Rajeev Lochan Das and

his wife Sonia Tripathy are admittedly in custody, but

the bail application of Rajeev Lochan Das has already

been disposed of with rejection of bail to him. Further,

this Court considers it profitable to refer to paragraph-23

of the decision in Iqbal Singh Marwah & Another vs.

Meenakshi Marwah & Another; (2005) 4 SCC 370 ;

wherein a Constitutional Bench of five Judges of our

Apex Court has held there as under:-

"23. In view of the language used in Section 340 CrPC the court is not bound to make a complaint regarding commission of an offence referred to in Section 195(1)(b), as the section is conditioned by the words "court is of opinion that it is expedient in

I.A. Nos. 1588 of 2024 & 80 of 2025 the interests of justice". This shows that such a course will be adopted only if the interest of justice requires and not in every case. Before filing of the complaint, the court may hold a preliminary enquiry and record a finding to the effect that it is expedient in the interests of justice that enquiry should be made into any of the offences referred to in Section 195(1)(b). This expediency will normally be judged by the court by weighing not the magnitude of injury suffered by the person affected by such forgery or forged document, but having regard to the effect or impact, such commission of offence has upon administration of justice. It is possible that such forged document or forgery may cause a very serious or substantial injury to a person in the sense that it may deprive him of a very valuable property or status or the like, but such document may be just a piece of evidence produced or given in evidence in court, where voluminous evidence may have been adduced and the effect of such piece of evidence on the broad concept of administration of justice may be minimal. In such circumstances, the court may not consider it expedient in the interest of justice to make a complaint. The broad view of clause (b)(ii), as canvassed by learned counsel for the appellants, would render the victim of such forgery or forged document remediless. Any interpretation which leads to a situation where a victim of a crime is rendered remediless, has to be discarded."

5. It is also considered by this Court that the

person to be an accused in a proceeding U/S.340 of

CrPC is not required to be heard before initiation of

I.A. Nos. 1588 of 2024 & 80 of 2025 proceeding which is confirmed by the Apex Court in the

decision State of Punjab vs. Jasbir Singh; (2022)

SCC OnLine SC 1240, wherein it has been held that

there is no question of opportunity of hearing in a

scenario of this nature.

6. Be that as it may, the petitioner-Rajeev

Lochan Das is in custody since 10.11.2023 and he is still

there in custody, but the informant wants to prosecute

him for further in a proceeding in the nature of Sec.340