Research › Search › Judgment

Orissa High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 305 (ORI)

Srimati Sabita Sundari Sahoo v. State of Orissa

2005-05-04

A.K.PARICHHA

body2005
ORDER Though the matter has been listed for admission, on the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, it is taken up for final disposal at the stage of admission. Heard learned counsel for the parties. One Biswanath Patnaik of Itamati filed a complaint petition before the learned S.D.J.M. Nayagarh alleging commission of offences under Sections 420, 294, 506/34, IPC by the present petitioner and her husband-Bhikari Charan Sahoo. Learned S.D.J.M., Nayagarh forwarded that complaint petition to Nayagarh P.S.under Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C. for investigation. Ac¬cordingly, the police authority registered Nayagarh P.S. Case No.44 of 2000 corresponding to G.R. Case No.116 of 2000 of the Court of the learned S.D.J.M., Nayagarh and took up investiga¬tion. After investigation they submitted charge sheet for the offence under Sections 420, 294, 506/34, IPC arraying the peti¬tioner and her husband as accused persons. Learned S.D.J.M., Nayagarh took cognizance of those offences and directed for issue of process against the accused persons. Aggrieved, the petitioner has filed the present application under Section 482, Cr.P.C. for quashing of the impugned order of cognizance dated 24.8.2000. Mr. S. K. Sahoo, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that even if the allegations made by the informant-complainant in the complaint petition are accepted in its entirety, yet no prima facie case for the alleged offences is made out against the peti¬tioner and for that reason it is necessary to quash the order of cognizance. In support of his contention Mr. Sahoo cites the cases of Nageswar Prasad Singh @ Sinha v. Narayan Singh and another (1998) 15 OCR (SC)- 542 and Jaffar Ali and another v. Gangadhar Sahoo 1998 (1) OLR-63. Mrs. Kasturi, learned Addl. Govt. Advocate on the other hand, submits that the petitioner and her husband accepted ad¬vance money from the informant undertaking to sell a plot of land, but they are now not performing their part of the contract and are threatening and abusing the informant and his wife. Ac¬cording to her/these allegations squarely establish prima facie for offences under Sections 420, 294, 506/34, IPC and for that reason the impugned order of cognizance can not be quashed. Ac¬cording to her/these allegations squarely establish prima facie for offences under Sections 420, 294, 506/34, IPC and for that reason the impugned order of cognizance can not be quashed. The allegation of the prosecution is that the petitioner and her husband entered into an agreement with the informant and his wife to sell away the peace of homestead land and accepted ad¬vance money from the informant and even delivered possession of the land to the informant. But subsequently the petitioner and her husband became reluctant to execute the register sale deed and threatened the informant and her husband. Now the question is whether these allegations, if accepted entirely, establish prima facie case for offence alleged. In the case of Nageswar Prasad Singh @ Sinha v. Narayan Singh and another (supra) the petitioner had entered into an agreement for sale of a land and had accepted advance money and had also put the complainant in possession of the land. But subsequently he became reluctant to comply with the bargain. Considering the facts and circumstances their Lordships held that breach of contract committed by the petitioner amounted to civil dispute and such breach will not constitute any criminal offence under Sec. 415 and 420 I.P.C. In the case of Jaffar Ali and another v. Gangadhar Sahoo (supra) this Court also took the same view and held that non-performance of a contract relating to sale of land amounts to a dispute civil in nature and proceeding under Section 420 of the I.P.C. is not warranted. The facts of the reported case being similar to the present case the ratio laid down by the Apex Court and this Court in the above noted case squarely cover the present case. I am therefore of the consider opinion that prima-facie case under Sec. 420 of the I.P.C. is not available. However, the allegations in the complain petition reveal that the petitioner and her husband abused the informant and his wife in obscene language on public place and also threatened them with dire consequence. These materials do constitute prima facie case for offences under Sec. 294/506/34, I.P.C. For the aforesaid reasons, the order of cognizance under Section 420 I.P.C. is quashed. But, the prayer for quashing of cognizance under Sec. 294/506/34 I.P.C. is rejected. As the case is of the year 2000 learned S.D.J.M. Nayagarh will do well to dispose of the case as expeditiously as possible. But, the prayer for quashing of cognizance under Sec. 294/506/34 I.P.C. is rejected. As the case is of the year 2000 learned S.D.J.M. Nayagarh will do well to dispose of the case as expeditiously as possible. With the above noted finding and observations, the CRLMC is disposed of. UCC be granted on proper application. CRLMC disposed of.