Research › Search › Judgment

Orissa High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 1031 (ORI)

Jugal Prasad Parida v. Commissionrate of Police

2017-09-12

J.P.DAS

body2017
ORDER J.P. DAS, J. - This common order shall dispose of the aforesaid two applications arising out of the same transaction between the same parties, praying to quash the F.I.R. dated 17.08.2016 lodged by the present opposite party no. 2-Rajpraksh Tripathy pursuant to which Mangalabag Police Station Case No. 173 of 2016 was registered under Section 420 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (for short the ‘I.P.C.’) in CRLMC No. 4023 of 2016. The other application CRLMP No. 1110 of 2016 has been filed with a prayer to defreeze the Bank account of the petitioners. It has been frozen in course of investigation into the aforesaid case. The jurisdiction of Mangalabag Police Station has also been assailed in registering the case with the contention that no part of the cause of action arose under the jurisdiction of the said Police Station. 2. The backdrop of the present proceeding is that the present opposite party no. 2-Rajprakash Tripathy lodged the F.I.R. before the Mangalabag Police Station at Cuttack alleging that the petitioners as partners of M/s. Parida Agency of Rourkela Town had executed a power of attorney dated 14.08.2012 in favour of the opposite party no.2 to execute the work “Rehabilitation”, Extension and Modernization of minor canals of Taladanda Canal System”. It was awarded to M/s. Parida Agency under a contract by the Government of Odisaha. It was further alleged that the opposite party no. 2 was authorized to deposit the security amount and to undertake the work as per the power of attorney and it was agreed upon between the parties that M/s. Parida Agency would have a claim to the extent of 3% in the bills release in its favour and rest of the amount was to be paid to the informant-opposite party no.2. The informant executed the works and received running bills. All of a sudden on 20.11.2015, the said Parida Agency wrote a letter to the Executive Engineer, Mahanadi South Division, Zobra, Cuttack which had awarded the contract, not to release the further bill amounts in favour of the informant. The informant further alleged that as a consequence of the mischief committed by the petitioners, an amount of Rs. 85,39,001/- approximately due to be received by the informant was held up. Apart from that, said Parida Agency received three subsequent running bills to a tune of Rs. The informant further alleged that as a consequence of the mischief committed by the petitioners, an amount of Rs. 85,39,001/- approximately due to be received by the informant was held up. Apart from that, said Parida Agency received three subsequent running bills to a tune of Rs. 85,2,037/-, which was credited to the bank account in the name of the present petitioner no. 2- Smt. Dhirubala Parida. Hence, alleging the cheating and fraud, the F.I.R. was lodged, pursuant to which, the case was registered as aforesaid. In course of investigation, the Bank account of the petitioner was frozen and some other seizures were made. 3. It is submitted in the CRLMC No. 4023 of 2016 that the allegation as made in the F.I.R. simply made out a case of breach of contact, if at all true and hence, the informant-opposite party no. 2 could have sought for the relief in appropriate civil forum and that there is absolutely no case made out under Section 420 of the I.P.C. Hence, quashing of the F.I.R. has been prayed for by exercise the power under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code. 4. In course of hearing, it was submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that even accepting the F.I.R. allegations as true for the sake of argument, there could not have been an offence under Section 420, I.P.C. since, to make out an offence of cheating there should have been a criminal motive on the part of the accused from the very inception, which is absolutely absent in this case. 5. Per contra, it was submitted by learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 as well as by learned counsel for the State that the case of the petitioners is not a simple as it has been tried to be presented as because the petitioners have intentionally committed certain acts in order to defraud the opposite party no.2 preventing him to get his dues. 6. Some case laws have been cited on behalf of both the sides in support of their respective contentions. 6. Some case laws have been cited on behalf of both the sides in support of their respective contentions. The position of law is not disputed that in order to make out an offence under Section 420 of the I.P.C. there should be intention on the part of the accused from the very inception to cheat the complainant and such an offence will not be made out only due to some subsequent developments causing loss to the complainant. In the instant case as stated above, the allegations as made in the F.I.R. appear to be a simple breach of contract and violations of terms of agreement and the power of attorney executed between the parties. But, the submissions as have been made on behalf of the petitioners in the present petition put the F.I.R. story under a different light. The execution of the power of attorney has been totally denied by the petitioners. As per their submissions in the application, the Investigating Agency all of a sudden coming to Rourkela snatched away one vehicle driven by opposite party no.3 without assigning any reason for which one F.I.R. was lodged before the Tangarpalli Police Station at Rourkela against the opposite party nos. 2 to 4. It has been further submitted that the petitioners were awarded with the work by the Executive Engineer, Mahanadi South Division, Zobra, Cuttack after consideration of the bid offered by the petitioners on 23.07.2012. Soon thereafter they started doing the work but the opposite party nos. 2 to 4 with their associates allegedly created disturbances and demanded money and forcibly took their signatures on non-judicial stamp papers. The work was stopped for certain days due to such illegal acts by the opposite party no.2 to 4. Thereafter the opposite party nos. 2 to 4 arrived at Rourkela in the residence of the petitioners in October, 2012 and illegally demanded money to provide protection and to take care of the work at Cuttack. The petitioners under threat and apprehension of the cancellation of the work issued 13 numbers of blank cheques to a tune of Rs. 1,33,28,000/-. It has been further submitted that the opposite parties failed to provide security to the petitioners firm as assured by them causing huge loss to the petitioners. It has further been alleged that the opposite party nos. 1,33,28,000/-. It has been further submitted that the opposite parties failed to provide security to the petitioners firm as assured by them causing huge loss to the petitioners. It has further been alleged that the opposite party nos. 2 to 4 in the night of 22.07.2016 entering inside the house of the petitioners created havoc for which one complaint case was also filed by the petitioners. It has been pleaded that the opposite party nos. 2 to 4 fabricated some power of attorney using the signatures of the petitioners on some blank non-judicial stamp papers. 7. In view of such allegations and contentions raised on behalf petitioners, the dispute cannot be said to be merely civil in nature. On the other hand, the allegation and counter allegations required through investigations, which can only be done by the police. In such circumstances, I do not find any merit in the contentions made on behalf of the petitioners that no criminal case is made out against the petitioners and the F.I.R. should be quashed. 8. In CRLMP No. 1110 of 2016, it has been submitted that the police of Mangalabag Police Station illegally has frozen one account of the petitioners and further, Mangalabag Police Station has no authority to investigate the case since no part of the cause of action arose within its jurisdiction. As stated hereinbefore, the work order was issued by the Executive Engineer, Mahanadi South Division, Zobra, Cuttack and the specific work related to the work of Rehabilitation, Extension and Modernization of minor canals of Taladanda Canal System. Suffice it to say that in case, it would be found out that the alleged matters came under the jurisdiction of some other Police Station there is absolutely no bar to transfer the case to such other Police Station for investigation on technical ground. 9. It was submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that the freezing of the account without any substantial material has caused serious inconvenience to the petitioners and, if at all the informant opposite party no.2 would be entitled for getting certain amount, he can realize it under due process of law. Hence, it has been prayed to release the said frozen account and it has also been prayed to direct the Executive Engineer, Mahanadi South Division, Zobra, Cuttack to release the balance amount in respect of the work in favour of the petitioners. 10. Hence, it has been prayed to release the said frozen account and it has also been prayed to direct the Executive Engineer, Mahanadi South Division, Zobra, Cuttack to release the balance amount in respect of the work in favour of the petitioners. 10. Considering the submission and the specific circumstances as discussed hereinbefore, I am of the considered view that the Bank account of the petitioners can be released with proper undertaking but there can be no direction to pay the balance amount in favour of the petitioners at this stage. Accordingly, it is ordered that CRLMC No. 4023 of 2016 is dismissed being devoid of any merit. The CRLMP No. 1110 of 2016 is allowed in part to the extent that the frozen Bank account of the petitioner be released by the Investigating Agency on proper undertaking to be given by the petitioner. Both the applications are disposed of accordingly. Applications disposed of.