Research › Search › Judgment

Orissa High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 661 (ORI)

Bhuban Mohan Pradhan v. State of Orissa

2008-08-07

M.M.DAS

body2008
ORDER M.M. DAS, J. — Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the State. 2. The petitioner, who is a doctor at present working as the Director of Swami Vivekananda National Institute of Rehabili¬tation Training and Research, Olatpur, has filed this application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. praying for quashing the F.I.R. under Annexure-1. 3. The F.I.R. was lodged by Md. Anmul Haque and others at 12.25 P.M. on 24.4.2008, which was registered as Govindapur P.S. Case No.40 of 2008. In the F.I.R. it has been alleged that in order to ventilate their grievances with regard to their basic problems of providing drinking water, difficulty in the residence and, more particularly, visibility of their rooms to others when they change clothes, in the afternoon of 23.4.2008, along with Dr. Sanjay Das, they went to the office of the Director. The Director was in a drunken stage and said that “you are not good children, you are enjoying outside talking with boys for long period, you have bad relationship with the seniors and you are roaming about in the hostel with your under clothings”. It was further alleged that the Director spoke obscene language and exhibited obscene behaviour. The rest of the allegations in the F.I.R. is in relation to other accused persons. It, therefore, appears that though F.I.R. was registered for commission of of¬fence under Sections 341/323/336/337/506/509/ IPC, but only the offences under Sections 506/509 IPC were alleged against the present petitioner. It further appears that the petitioner also lodged an F.I.R. on 24.4.2008 at 11.15 A.M. against the informant Md. Anmul Haque and others., alleging that in the morning of the same day the accused persons came in a group and forcibly entered into his office and assaulted him. They also ransacked the office furni¬ture and damaged medical equipments and machineries belonging to the hospital of a value of Rs. 50 lakhs. The said F.I.R. was registered as Govindapur P.S. Case No. 39 of 2008 for offences under Sections 147/452/323/326/307/427/149 IPC read with Section 3 of the P.D.P.P. Act and Section 7 of the Criminal Law Amendment Act. 4. Mr. 50 lakhs. The said F.I.R. was registered as Govindapur P.S. Case No. 39 of 2008 for offences under Sections 147/452/323/326/307/427/149 IPC read with Section 3 of the P.D.P.P. Act and Section 7 of the Criminal Law Amendment Act. 4. Mr. Ganeswar Rath, learned counsel for the petitioner draws the attention of the Court to Sections 506 and 509 IPC and submits that since there is absolutely no allegation made against the petitioner from which it can be, prima facie, gathered that the offences under the aforementioned sections have been commit¬ted, the F.I.R. is liable to be quashed as against the present petitioner. He further submits that even admitting the entire allegation, no case whatsoever is made out against the present petitioner far less, any cognizable offence and, therefore, the police officer concerned could not have registered the F.I.R. against the present petitioner. 5. With regard to exercise of the power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. by the High Court, by now, it is well settled that inher¬ent jurisdiction, under the said section, though wide, has to be exercised sparingly, carefully and with caution and only when such exercise is justified by the tests specifically laid down in Section 482 Cr.P.C., power to be exercised ex debito justitiae to prevent abuse of process of Court, but should not be exercised to stifle a legitimate prosecution. The Court should refrain from giving a prima facie decision where entire facts are incomplete and hazy. No hard and fast rule can be laid down for exercise of the inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. It has been laid down that the High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. pos¬sesses a wide power and the very plentitude of such power requires a great caution in its exercise and the Court must see that its decision in exercise of this power is based on sound principles. It is naive to state that Section 482 Cr.P.C. does not confer any new power on the High Court but only saves the inherent power which the Court possessed before enactment of the Code. It envis¬ages three circumstances under which, it can be exercised, i.e., (i) to give effect to an order under Cr.P.C. (ii) to prevent abuse of the process of Court, and (iii) to otherwise secure the ends of justice. It envis¬ages three circumstances under which, it can be exercised, i.e., (i) to give effect to an order under Cr.P.C. (ii) to prevent abuse of the process of Court, and (iii) to otherwise secure the ends of justice. In this context, the Supreme Court has held that it is neither possible nor desirable to lay down any inflexible rule which would govern the exercise of inherent jurisdiction. (See Minu Kumari and another v. State of Bihar and others) (2006) 4 SCC 359 . 6. Examining the facts of the instant case, in the touch stone of the aforesaid proposition laid down in various decisions of the Apex Court as well as of this Court, it is required to be seen as to whether, the F.I.R. on the face of it, discloses a cognizable offence to have been committed by the petitioner by accepting the same on its face value. If it discloses a cogniza¬ble offence, the Court should refrain from interfering with the investigation conducted by the police, which is within the realm of the powers of the police under the provisions of the Cr.P.C. 7. As already narrated in paragraph-3 above, accepting the allegations made in the F.I.R. with regard to commission of offences under Sections 506/509 IPC made against the petitioner on its face value, it would be seen that on the face of it, the same does not disclose such an offence to have been committed by the petitioner. This Court, therefore, finds that the police could not have registered the F.I.R. against the present peti¬tioner as the same does not disclose a cognizable offence to have been committed by the petitioner nor there is any material with the police to suspect commission of such an offence by the peti¬tioner. It is even found that necessary factual foundation has not been laid in the F.I.R., far less stating the ingredients of the offence under Sections 506/509 IPC. Allowing the Investigat¬ing Agency to proceed with the investigation in the present case would amount to an abuse of the process of the Court and to secure the ends of justice, it is required to quash the F.I.R. in relation to the offence alleged against the present petitioner. 8. Allowing the Investigat¬ing Agency to proceed with the investigation in the present case would amount to an abuse of the process of the Court and to secure the ends of justice, it is required to quash the F.I.R. in relation to the offence alleged against the present petitioner. 8. The F.I.R. is, therefore, quashed as against the present petitioner and, accordingly, the name of the petitioner be deleted from the array of accused in the connected G.R. Case No.412 of 2008 pending in the Court of the learned J.M.F.C. (R), Cuttack. The CRLMC is accordingly allowed. CRLMC allowed.