Research › Search › Judgment

Orissa High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 677 (ORI)

RAVI P. REDDY v. STATE OF ORISSA

2005-12-05

R.N.BISWAL

body2005
( 1 ) THIS CRLMC arises out of a petition under Section 482 of Cr. P. C. seeking quashing of the F. I. R. vide Golanthara p. S. case No. 101 dated 4-8-2005 giving rise to G. R. case No. 1150 of 2005 pending on the file of the S. D. J. M. Berhampur. ( 2 ) AS depicted in the F. I. R. informant and his wife are founding members and doners of S. M. Charitable Educational trust, which promotes the Engineering College, after the name National Institute of science and Technology (hereinafter referred as 'nist') established at Palur Hills under golanthara Police Station, Berhampur. He is also Chairman of the Governing Body of nist and S. M. Charitable Educational Trust. Mr. Sangam Muduli is the Director of NIST. With prior notice to Mr. Sangram Muduli, for discussion on important matter relating to NIST, he visited it at 10 a. m. on 3rd August 2005 to find Mr. Muduli absent there. The informant was made to understand that the accused-petitioner, one of the faculty members of NIST was in charge of the Director, Mr. Muduli. When he asked him to open the conference hall where he (informant) used to sit on his visit to NIST, he physically restrained him, used abusive language and threatened to his life. So, on 4-8-2005 at 3. 30 p. m he lodged a written report before the O. I. C. of Golanthara P. S. who treated it as F. I. R. and registered P. S. Case no. 101 of 2005 under Sections 294/341/506 of I. P. C. The accused-petitioner has sought for quashing the said F. I. R, as stated earlier. ( 3 ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner submitted that as per the F. I. R. , informant is the Chairman of the Governing Body of nist and S. M. Charitable Educational trust. But, in fact he does not hold either of the offices. So, the contents of the F. I. R are outright false. The accused/petitioner is a distinguished-academician having the qualification of B. Tech in I. I. T. Khadapur with m. S. and Ph. D. degree from the University of Houston, U. S. A. It appears inherently improbable that he committed the offence as alleged. So, the contents of the F. I. R are outright false. The accused/petitioner is a distinguished-academician having the qualification of B. Tech in I. I. T. Khadapur with m. S. and Ph. D. degree from the University of Houston, U. S. A. It appears inherently improbable that he committed the offence as alleged. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that even if the allegations made in the F. I. R. are believed to be true, still then, the same cannot prima facie make out a case for the offence under Sections 294/341/506 of I. P. C. , particularly when the informant has no right to enter the Conference Hall. As such the F. I. R deserves to be quashed. To prove that the informant is neither the Chairman of the Governing Body of NIST nor that of the S. M. Charitable Educational Trust he relied upon Annexure-3 and the intervention petition filed by the informant before this Court. ( 4 ) PER contra, learned Addl. Standing counsel contended that at this stage neither Annexure-3 nor the intervention petition can be gone into or else it would mean permitting the accused-petitioner to adduce his defence before the case is investigated into, which is against the principle of criminal jurisprudence. Only because the accused-petitioner is a distinguished academician, it cannot be said before investigating into the case that he is not involved in the crime in question. If the allegations made in the F. I. R. are accepted in their totality then a prima facie case under Sections 294/341/506 of I. P. C. is made out against the accused-petitioner. So the learned Addl. Standing Counsel pressed to dismiss the crlmc. ( 5 ) GENERALLY at the stage of investigation no document, filed on behalf of the accused should be entertained so as to stifle the prosecution at the threshold, but unimpeachable documentary evidence of sterling quality can be taken into consideration, if the same is required to secure the ends of justice or to avoid abuse of process of Court. Annexure-3 is an extract of the resolution passed in meeting No. 39 of S. M. Charitable Educational Trust held on 29-7-2005 at the Conference Hall NIST, wherein eight persons were unanimously nominated to the governing Body of NIST. Annexure-3 is an extract of the resolution passed in meeting No. 39 of S. M. Charitable Educational Trust held on 29-7-2005 at the Conference Hall NIST, wherein eight persons were unanimously nominated to the governing Body of NIST. The name of the petitioner does not find place in it, whereas the name of accused-petitioner is reflected therein as a member of the Governing Body. I would not have gone into this document, had the informant in his intervention petition would not have admitted about the existence of it. When the informant himself admitted about the formation of the Governing Body as per Annexure-3 there is no impediment in relying upon it. But in the intervention petition, the informant has further stated that the accused-petitioner and others practising fraud removed him from the Chairmanship of S. M. Charitable Educational Trust as well as the Governing Body of NIST. So, if in fact the Governing Body of nist was formed as per Annexure-3 by practicing fraud and it was known to the accused-petitioner then, he cannot take the plea that the informant not being the Chairman of the Governing Body of NIST or the trust, had no right to enter inside the Conference Hall. So, even if Annexure-3 and the intervention petition are taken into consideration the same would be of no help to the petitioner. ( 6 ) AS per Section 154 (1) of the Cr. P. C. if information relating to commission of a cognizable offence is given in writing to the o. I. C. of a police station and signed by the informant, he has to register the case. If he has reason to suspect commission of an offence which he is empowered to investigate into under Section 156 of Cr. P. C. he has to investigate it or entrust the investigation to any of his subordinate, empowered to do so. Reverting to the present case, as found from f. I. R. a case has been registered for the offence under Sections 294/341/506 of I. P. C. of which, offence under Sections 294 and 341 of I. P. C. are cognizable. The power of investigation is the domain of the police personnel. The Court should not interfere the same as long as the case is investigated into in accordance with law. The power of investigation is the domain of the police personnel. The Court should not interfere the same as long as the case is investigated into in accordance with law. Of course, if the allegation set out in the F. I. R. does not constitute any offence, even if the allegations made therein are accepted in their totality, this Court by exercising the power conferred on it under Section 482 of Cr. P. C. can quash the same, but again it depends upon the facts and circumstances of each individual case. The essential ingredients of Section 294 of I. P. C. are that :i) the accused committed an obscene act or ii) he sang or recited or uttered any obscene songs, ballads or words, in or near any public place and iii) such act or utterance caused annoyance to others. ( 7 ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner submitted that as per the F. I. R. when the informant asked the accused-petitioner to open the conference hall of NIST he used abusive language against him. Abusive language does not mean utterance of obscene words. The conference hall being a part and parcel of the building of NIST which situates inside the College campus, is not a public place and as such the offence under sections 294 of I. P. C. cannot be attracted against the accused-petitioner. Abusive language also includes utterance of obscene words. Public place means a place where public has free access. The alleged occurrence did not take place inside the Conference Hall. It took place inside the campus of NIST. It cannot be said that the general public has no access to it. So, I am unable to persuade myself to hold that the occurrence did not take place in a public place. Though annoyance is an important ingredient of Section 294 of I. P. C. , it being associated with mental condition the same has to be inferred from proved facts. To attract the offence under Section 341 of I. P. C. it has to be proved that :a) there was obstruction by the accused; b) such obstruction prevented a person from proceeding in a direction to which he had a right to proceed; c) the accused caused such obstruction voluntarily. To attract the offence under Section 341 of I. P. C. it has to be proved that :a) there was obstruction by the accused; b) such obstruction prevented a person from proceeding in a direction to which he had a right to proceed; c) the accused caused such obstruction voluntarily. ( 8 ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner submitted that since the informant was not even a member of the Governing Body of nist, he had no right to enter inside the conference Hall. Even if it is presumed that he was the Chairman of the Governing Body of NIST and he had access to the Conference Hall at the relevant time, still then, the offence under Section 341 of I. P. C. cannot be attracted against the accused-petitioner in view of Section 76 of I. P. C. since by mistake of the fact that the informant had no connection with NIST, in good faith he restrained him from entering the Conference hall. As found from the intervention petition, the petitioner has been removed from the offence of Chairmanship of the governing Body of NIST as well as S. M. Charitable educational Trust fraudulently. In that event the petitioner cannot be protected under section 76 of I. P. C. If in fact the informant has right to enter inside the Conference Hall and the accused-petitioner voluntarily caused obstruction to him he may be liable for the offence under Section 341 of I. P. C. In order to attract the offence under Section 506 of I. P. C. , it is to be proved that :1) the accused threatened a person with injury to his person, reputation or property or; 2) to the person or reputation of any one with whom that perspn is interested; 3) threatening must be with intent to; i) cause alarm to the person or to cause the person to do any act, which he is not legally bound to do as the means of avoiding the execution of such threat; ii) to cause that person to omit to do any act, which that person is legally, entitled, to do as the means of avoiding the execution of such threat. ( 9 ) IN the present case it is found from the F. I. R. that accused-petitioner threatened the informant with dire consequence to his life. ( 9 ) IN the present case it is found from the F. I. R. that accused-petitioner threatened the informant with dire consequence to his life. To attract the offence under Section 506 of I. P. C. it is not necessary to prove that the person threatened at, was in fact alarmed. If the intention of the accused was to cause alarm it is sufficient. F. I. R. is not expected to be an encyclopedia. If skeletal feature of it disclos'es commission of an offence it should not be quashed. In the case in hand it cannot be said that since the accused-petitioner is a distinguished academician he is not involved in the crime, particularly when the informant is also a highly qualified person. ( 10 ) IN view of the discussions made above, the allegation made against the accused-petitioner as found from the F. I. R. cannot be said to have not even skeletal feature of commission of an offence. Now the investigation into the case is in progress. Many more things may come to light during investigation. At this stage, it would be erroneous to conclude that the case should not be proceeded with. In the result the CRLMC stand dismissed. Application dismissed. .