Research › Search › Judgment

Orissa High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 1358 (ORI)

Pravanjan Sahu @ Bhanj v. State of Orissa

2017-11-27

S.K.SAHOO

body2017
JUDGMENT : S.K. Sahoo, J. None appears on behalf of the petitioner. 2. The petitioner Pravanjan Sahu @ Bhanj in this application under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 has prayed for quashing the criminal proceeding in G.R. Case No.36 of 2005 pending in the Court of learned S.D.J.M., Parlakhemundi. The said case arises out of Parlakhemundi P.S. Case No.27 of 2005 registered under section 420 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. The first information report was lodged by one Arun Kumar Patra wherein it is stated that the petitioner was a local person and he was managing the Parlakhemundi Branch of P.S. Moneycraft & Fintech Ltd. (hereafter ‘the company’) and the informant deposited Rs.20,000/- with said chit fund company and the petitioner promised him for good return of his money after maturity but the company closed its business in the month of January 1999 and thereby misappropriated the invested money of the informant. 4. On perusal of the grounds taken in the application, it is stated that the role of the petitioner in the business of the Company was very limited and his duty was to make aware about the policy of the company to its share holders, those who come forward for the business with the said Company. It further stated that the petitioner was working as Marketing Executive and he himself has sustained a huge loss by not getting salary and other service benefits due to untimely closure of the Company. It is further stated that due to closure of the Company, there was no willful intention or knowledge on the part of the petitioner. It is further stated that there is no prima facie case to make out an offence under section 420 of the Indian Penal Code. 5. In case of State of Haryana Vs. Ch. Bhajan Lal reported in AIR 1992 SC 604 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court has laid down certain guidelines relating to exercise of inherent power under section 482 Cr.P.C. by the High Court to quash the first information report which are as follows:- “108. 5. In case of State of Haryana Vs. Ch. Bhajan Lal reported in AIR 1992 SC 604 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court has laid down certain guidelines relating to exercise of inherent power under section 482 Cr.P.C. by the High Court to quash the first information report which are as follows:- “108. In the backdrop of the interpretation of the various relevant provisions of the Code under Chapter XIV and of the principles of law enunciated by this Court in a series of decisions relating to the exercise of the extraordinary power under Article 226 or the inherent powers under section 482 of the Code which we have extracted and reproduced above, we give the following categories of cases by way of illustration wherein such power could be exercised either to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice, though it may not be possible to lay down any precise, clearly defined and sufficiently channelised and inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae and to give an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases wherein such power should be exercised. 1. Where the allegations made in the First Information Report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused. 2. Where the allegations in the First Information Report and other materials, if any, accompanying the F.I.R. do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under section 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code. 3. Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the F.I.R. or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused. 4. Where, the allegations in the F.I.R. do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under section 155(2) of the Code. 5. Where the allegations made in the F.I.R. or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. 6. 5. Where the allegations made in the F.I.R. or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. 6. Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party. 7. Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge.” 6. Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code prescribes punishment for cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property. Section 415 of the Indian Penal Code defines ‘cheating’. The essential ingredients of the offence of "cheating" are as follows: (i) deception of a person either by making a false or misleading representation or by dishonest concealment or by any other act or omission; (ii) fraudulent or dishonest inducement of that person to either deliver any property or to consent to the retention thereof by any person or to intentionally induce that person so deceived to do or omit to do anything which he would not do or omit if he were not so deceived; and (iii) such act or omission causing or is likely to cause damage or harm to that person in body, mind, reputation or property. To constitute an offence under Section 420, there should not only be cheating, but as a consequence of such cheating, the accused should have dishonestly induced the person deceived (i) to deliver any property to any person, or (ii) to make, alter or destroy wholly or in part a valuable security (or anything signed or sealed and which is capable of being converted into a valuable security). The guilty intention is an essential ingredient of the offence of ‘cheating’ and in order to constitute the offence of cheating the intention to deceive should be in existence at the time when the inducement was offered. 7. The guilty intention is an essential ingredient of the offence of ‘cheating’ and in order to constitute the offence of cheating the intention to deceive should be in existence at the time when the inducement was offered. 7. Since on the face of the first information report, prima facie ingredients of offence under section 420 of the Indian Penal Code is made out against the petitioner and there is likelihood of finding more materials in the case during course of investigation, therefore, I am not inclined to exercise the inherent power under section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the proceeding. 8. Therefore, the CRLMC application being devoid of merits stands dismissed.