Research › Search › Judgment

Orissa High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 363 (ORI)

Sangram Keshari Mishra v. Amulya Das

2006-05-09

A.S.NAIDU

body2006
JUDGMENT A. S. NAIDU, J. : The petitioner filed a complaint petition before the SDJM, Bhanjanagar, registered as ICC No.55 of 2003, inter alia alleging commission of offences under Sections 167/193/218/406/409/416/420/427/468/477-A/506/34 IPC against the present opposite parties. It was stated that the petitioner-complainant was working as a Lecturer in Mathematics in the Anchalika Mahavidyalaya and after leaving the said job was work¬ing as an Demonstrator in Chemistry in the Savitri Women’s Col¬lege, Bhanjanagar. During his service in the Anchalika Mahavidya¬laya he was getting a remuneration of Rs.200.00 per month, but then he was compelled by the accused-Principal Amulya Das to put his signatures on revenue stamps affixed to blank pages of Ac¬quittance Roll of the said college. It was alleged that on 3.2.1987 the petitioner-complainant along with other Lecturers had submitted a Memorandum making three or four demands. The accused Principal however manipulated the said Memorandum to show as if the same was a mass resignation letter and on that basis on 10.3.1987 Dr. Panu Naik, the then President of the Governing Body of the college and others accepted the same as resignation let¬ter. Besides, many other allegations were made in the complaint petition. The SDJM after perusing the complaint petition and the statement of the complainant recorded under Section 200 CrPC and the statements of others recorded under Section 202 CrPC came to the conclusion that the materials did not reveal the ingredients of the offences alleged against the accused persons. He found that the dispute as was evident from the allegations made in the complaint petition centred among the Lecturers and the college administration and the same could be ventilated in proper forum and the criminal Court could not interfere in that matter. On the basis of such conclusion and the Court below dismissed the com¬plaint petition under Section 203 CrPC by order dated 8.7.2004 which is sought to be quashed in this case. 2. Miss Ratho, learned counsel for the petitioner, force¬fully submitted that the Court below ought not to have dismissed the complaint petition in exercise of the power conferred upon it under Section 203 CrPC without issuing notice to the complainant and, as such, the order of the Court below in that regard is vulnerable in law. In support of her submission she relied upon several decisions. 3. In support of her submission she relied upon several decisions. 3. Section 203 CrPC specifically stipulates that after considering the statement on oath of the complainant and of other witnesses in an inquiry under Section 202 CrPC if the Magistrate is of the opinion that there is no sufficient ground to proceed with the case, he shall dismiss the complaint. But then he shall record the reasons briefly. The materials on which the Magistrate has to act while disposing of a complaint petition under Section 203 CrPC are expressly limited by the said Section itself, viz., the complaint petition, statement on oath if any of the complain¬ant and the witnesses produced by him in course of investigation under Section 202 CrPC. The Section empowers the Magistrate to summarily dismiss a complaint petition if after examining the complainant there is, in his judgment, not sufficient ground for proceeding with the case. The order can beheld to be bad only where the Magistrate has omitted to record his reasons for an order of dismissal. 4. In the case at hand, the Magistrate has carefully considered the allegations made in the complaint petition and perused the statement of the complainant recorded under Section 200 CrPC and the statements of others recorded during the pro¬ceeding under Section 202 CrPC. After going through the aforesaid materials, the Magistrate arrived at the conclusion that the same did not reveal commission of the offences by the accused persons as alleged, and rather disclosed a dispute between the Lecturers and the college administration. The Magistrate has also found that interference of the criminal Court was not warranted in such case. 5. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner this Court also went through the complaint petition and other materials available on record and found that the allegations made in the complaint petition are based on surmises and conjectures. The witnesses in course of inquiry under Section 202 CrPC could not establish commission of any offence by the accused persons. The seasonings given by the Court below do not suffer from any infirmity or illegality. That apart this Court finds that the complaint case in question was filed in the year 2003 and almost three years have passed in the meanwhile. In such circumstances this Court declines to interfere with the impugned order and, accordingly, dismisses this CRLMC. CRLMC dismissed.