Research › Search › Judgment

Orissa High Court · body

2000 DIGILAW 372 (ORI)

ABANINDRA MOHANTY v. GOURANGA PANDA

2000-07-25

B.P.DAS

body2000
JUDGMENT : B.P. Das, J. - Heard Mr. B. Panda, learned Counsel for the Petitioner and Mr. B. Mohanty, learned Counsel for opposite party No. 1 2. This is an application u/s 482, Code of Criminal Procedure with a prayer to quash the cognizance taken by the learned S.D.J.M. Berhampur In I.C.C. No. 19/97 under Sections 341,294,323,506 Indian Penal Code. 3. The brief facts leading to the filing of the complaint and this application are that the Petitioner is a Central Government servant and serving as the Telecom District Manager in the revenue districts of Ganjam, Gajapati, Boudh and Phulbani in Junior Administrative Grade. A complaint was filed against him by one Gouranga Panda, as it reveals from the complaint petition on the following allegations: On 6.3.1997 a 8.30 A.M. the complainant had been to the fish market to purchase fish and he selected one 'Rohi' fish and while bargaining with the fisher-woman on the rate of the fish, the present Petitioner came there and enhanced the rate for which the vendor refused to sell the same to the complainant. Being protested by the complainant, the present Petitioner abused him in filthy language, caught hold of his shirt collar and gave a slap on the left cheek of the complainant with his right hand. On the intervention of one Dillip and Himansu though the complainant was escaped from the clutches of the accused, the accused threatened the complainant that he would kill him by engaging Gunlas. 4. The learned Counsel of the Petitioner Mr. Panda argues that the Petitioner is an efficient officer and was posted at Berhampur for the telecom development of South Orissa and some of the employees attached in the Telcom district of Berhampur with the intention of demoralising him Instituted the complaint case against him though the present complainant who has never met him. It is further submitted that this is not only an attempt to decentralise the present officer but the other officers were also being threat in the past and one of such incident occurred. Divisional Junior Trunks, under whose direct 'control one K.K. Panigrahi, Bhimsen Behera, Bhimsen Sahu and U.N. Nayak were working, was assaulted by them for which F.I.R. was. lodged and Berhampur Town P.S. Case No. 9 dated 9.1.1997 was registered against the accused persons. Divisional Junior Trunks, under whose direct 'control one K.K. Panigrahi, Bhimsen Behera, Bhimsen Sahu and U.N. Nayak were working, was assaulted by them for which F.I.R. was. lodged and Berhampur Town P.S. Case No. 9 dated 9.1.1997 was registered against the accused persons. The Petitioner was also getting threat to his life through various letters which was duly reported to the Officer-incharge, Berhampur Town Police Station as well as to the Superintendent of Police, Berhampur. 5. On perusal of Annexure-l to this application it transpires that the present Petitioner had issued an order of transfer on 10.1.1997 transferring Bhimsen Sahu, R.K. Panda, U.N.Nayak, Bhimsen Behera and K.K. Panigrahi from Berhampur to some other places. It is alleged that Shri K.K. Panigrahi who is the leader of the Union was trying to paralyse the telecom system of that area and said K.K. Panigrahi was also running a hardware shop in the name and style of K.K. Traders and the present complainant was an employee under said K.K. Panigrahi, More surprising is the conduct of the complainant who has not even filed an F.I.R. against the Petitioner and the reason for the samehas not been explained in the complaint petition. Rather, in the complaint the delay in filing of the complaint as explained indicates that the complainant waited for four days to file the complaint but preferred not to approach the local police. The conduct of the complainant is totally doubtful, so also his truthfulness. That apart Annexure-2 which is the tour diary of the Petitioner clearly indicates that the Petitioner was on tour since 5.3.1997 and came back to Berhampur on 6.3.1997 at 4.30 P.M. There is nothing to disbelieve the tour diary of a Government servant which has been duly approved by the Chief General Manager, Telecom. That apart, without scanning the evidence and accepting the complaint petition in toto, non examination of the fisher-woman is conspicuous and shrouds a deep cloud of doubt in the story of the complainant. The learned Magistrate has misdirected himself in reaching the conclusion that a prima facie case has been made out, when a vital witness has not been examined by the complainant nor has been included in the list of witnesses. The learned Magistrate has misdirected himself in reaching the conclusion that a prima facie case has been made out, when a vital witness has not been examined by the complainant nor has been included in the list of witnesses. There is force in the argument of the learned Counsel for the Petitioner; that now-a-days a trend has developed to implicate public officers in false cases, in order to harass and humiliate them.. 6. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, in my opinion, the learned Court below has failed to take note of the inherent improbabilities appearing in the complaint petition and took cognizance of offences in a mechanical manner, which cannot be sustained. Accordingly, the cognizance taken by the learned Magistrate on 22.3.1997 in I.C.C. 19/97 is hereby quashed. 7. The Crl. Misc. Case is accordingly disposed of.