Research › Search › Judgment

Orissa High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 812 (ORI)

Guru Prasad Mishra v. State of Orissa

2017-07-31

S.K.SAHOO

body2017
JUDGMENT : S.K. SAHOO, J. Heard Mr. G.P. Dutta, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. Prem Kumar Pattnaik, learned Addl. Government Advocate appearing for the State. Even after valid service of notice on opposite party no.2 Dr. Manoranjan Dash, none appears on his behalf. 1. The petitioner Guru Prasad Mishra in this application under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 has challenged the impugned order dated 03.08.2004 passed by the learned S.D.J.M., Panposh, Rourkela in I.C.C. No.13 of 2004 in taking cognizance of offences punishable under sections 500/501 of the Indian Penal Code and issuance of process against him. 2. Mr. G.P. Dutta, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that initially one Subodh Kumar Toppo filed C.D. Case No.10 of 1995 before the District Consumer Dispute Redressal Forum, Rourkela claiming compensation to the tune of Rs.3,00,000/-(three lakhs only) on the allegation of medical negligence by the opposite party no.2 and subsequently he impleaded the New India Assurance Co. Ltd. and Dr.(Mrs.) Dheera Das, proprietor, Sudha Nursing Home as opposite parties nos.2 and 3. The learned District Consumer Forum vide order dated 22.03.1996 dismissed the complaint petition filed by the said Subodh Kumar Toppo. After dismissal of the complaint, the complainant preferred C.D. Appeal No.281 of 1996 before the State Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission, Orissa which was also dismissed vide order dated 18.04.2002. After dismissal of the appeal, Dr. (Mrs.) Dheera Das, proprietor, Sudha Nursing Home sent a letter on dated 05.11.2002 to the Divisional office where the petitioner was working as Senior Divisional Manager and she requested the petitioner’s office to reimburse Rs.52,500/-(rupees fifty two thousand five hundred only) towards the advocate’s bill engaged by her. After receiving such letter, the petitioner as Senior Divisional Manager intimated Dr.(Mrs.) Dheera Das vide letter dated 20.11.2002 that no verbal advice was given by his office for payment of such amount and further the office had not given any consent to the insured/Dr. Dash to defend the case on behalf of the company. After receiving such letter, the petitioner as Senior Divisional Manager intimated Dr.(Mrs.) Dheera Das vide letter dated 20.11.2002 that no verbal advice was given by his office for payment of such amount and further the office had not given any consent to the insured/Dr. Dash to defend the case on behalf of the company. On 06.06.2003 the petitioner received two letters dated 20.03.2003 and 05.06.2003 through registered post purportedly to be the reminders to the letter dated 05.11.2002 and after receipt of the letters, the petitioner found that though the letters were dated 20.03.2003 and 05.06.2003 but those were posted on one day i.e. on 05.06.2003 as the post office numbered the same as RL 5000 dated 05.06.2003 and RL 5001 dated 05.06.2003. Thereafter, the opposite party no.2 came to the office of the petitioner on 09.06.2003 and demanded the amount towards lawyer’s fees but he was told in the office that the amount could not be paid under any policy. The opp. party no.2 misbehaved with the staff of the office in the absence of the petitioner and when the petitioner came to the office, all the employees complained before him about the misbehavior of the opposite party no.2. The petitioner being the Divisional Manager of the office and being the head of the office wrote a letter dated 09.06.2003 intimating Dr. (Mrs.) Dheera Das, proprietor, Sudha Nursing Home about the misbehavior of the opposite party no.2. It is further contended that after receipt of such letter dated 09.06.2003, Dr.(Mrs.) Dheera Das, proprietor, Sudha Nursing Home contacted the petitioner in his office and the petitioner explained her about the situation created by the opposite party no.2 and during such discussion, it was decided that the letters will not be sent to any other person and accordingly, the petitioner did not forward the same to the addressee as mentioned in the letter dated 09.06.2003. It is contended that thereafter a false complaint petition was filed by the opp. Party no.2 just to harass the petitioner. 3. In the complaint petition, the opposite party no.2-complainant has reproduced certain extracts of the letter dated 09.06.2003 of the petitioner which according to him are defamatory which are as follows:- “We are sorry to inform you that your unauthorized representative Dr. Party no.2 just to harass the petitioner. 3. In the complaint petition, the opposite party no.2-complainant has reproduced certain extracts of the letter dated 09.06.2003 of the petitioner which according to him are defamatory which are as follows:- “We are sorry to inform you that your unauthorized representative Dr. M.R. Dash has entered into our office premises in above connection in the absence of the undersigned in a mad state of mind and he has lost the sense of official discipline. You are therefore requested to treat him as well as teach him how to deal with official matters in public service officers, failing which we shall take shelter of law of the land. However we are keeping the appropriate authorities informed about the attitude and behavior of your representative. We assure the professional ethics as a proprietor of a Nursing Home is forgone with a view to encash the easy money from Insurance Company at the cost of your goodwill.” 4. It is averred in the complaint petition that due to the writings of the petitioner in the letter dated 09.06.2003, the opp. party no.2 was defamed and his prestige has been lowered down in the society and it is further mentioned that the expressions in the letters are scandalous. It is further stated in the complaint petition that the complainant is president of Siridi Sai Sansthan and he was rewarded for his outstanding contribution in community Service by Rotary Club of Rourkela Mid town and he felt depression in his mind due to the words used by the petitioner falsely in the letter dated 09.06.2003. 5. Mr. G.P. Dutta, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that the petitioner being the Senior Divisional Manager of New India Assurance Co. Ltd. by issuing such letter dated 09.06.2003 in his official capacity to Dr. (Mrs.) Dheera Das, proprietor, Sudha Nursing Home who happens to the wife of opposite party no.2-complainant has brought to her notice about the overt act committed by the complainant inside the office premises of New India Assurance Co. Ltd. by issuing such letter dated 09.06.2003 in his official capacity to Dr. (Mrs.) Dheera Das, proprietor, Sudha Nursing Home who happens to the wife of opposite party no.2-complainant has brought to her notice about the overt act committed by the complainant inside the office premises of New India Assurance Co. Ltd. and the ingredients of offences under sections 500/501 of the Indian Penal Code are not attracted and it is just a communication between the petitioner and Dr.(Mrs.) Dheera Das, proprietor, Sudha Nursing Home and though in the letter, it has been mentioned to send the copies to Deputy Superintendent of Police, CBI and Director, Health and Medical Services Department but those letters were not dispatched after the matter was discussed with the wife of the opposite party no.2. It is further contended that since it is exchange of communication and there is no scurrilous allegation or imputation contained in the letter dated 09.06.2003, unless this Court interferes with the impugned order by invoking its inherent power under section 482 of Cr.P.C. and set aside the order of taking cognizance and issuance of process, the petitioner will be seriously prejudiced. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner drew the attention of this Court to different letters written by Dr. (Mrs.) Dheera Das to the Divisional Manager, The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. on different dates. 7. Considering the background of the case, it prima facie appears that the wife of the petitioner demanded a sum of Rs.52,500/-(rupees fifty two thousand five hundred only) towards the charges of the advocate fees by writing letters which was not entertained by the petitioner as Divisional Manager of the company for which the dispute arose between the parties. By writing the letter dated 09.06.2003, the petitioner has brought to the notice of Dr. (Mrs.) Dheera Das, proprietor, Sudha Nursing Home regarding the overt act committed by the opposite party no.2-complainant in his office. 8. In the complaint petition, the complainant–opposite party no.2 has not disputed his visit to the office of the petitioner on the relevant date. By writing the letter dated 09.06.2003, the petitioner has brought to the notice of Dr. (Mrs.) Dheera Das, proprietor, Sudha Nursing Home regarding the overt act committed by the opposite party no.2-complainant in his office. 8. In the complaint petition, the complainant–opposite party no.2 has not disputed his visit to the office of the petitioner on the relevant date. The contents of the letter dated 09.06.2003 written by the petitioner which was communicated to the wife of the opposite party no.2 regarding the conduct of the opposite party no.2 in a public office narrates what had happened in the office on the relevant date and further with an advice to the wife of the opposite party no.2 to ask the opposite party no.2 to behave properly in the official matters in public offices. 9. In the case of State of Haryana and Ors. -Vrs.-Ch. Bhajan Lal and Ors. reported in A.I.R. 1992 S.C. 604 while laying down some of the principles for quashing the F.I.R. or the criminal proceeding, it is held as follows:- “(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. x x x x x x x (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.” After carefully going through the letter dated 09.06.2003 written by the petitioner to the complainant-opp. party no.2 in its entirety, I find that there is neither any intent on part of the petitioner to cause harm to the reputation of the complainant nor can I discern any actual harm done to his reputation. In short, both the elements i.e. mens rea and actus reus are missing. party no.2 in its entirety, I find that there is neither any intent on part of the petitioner to cause harm to the reputation of the complainant nor can I discern any actual harm done to his reputation. In short, both the elements i.e. mens rea and actus reus are missing. I am of the view that the filing the complaint petition by the complainant-opposite party no.2 is nothing but an attempt to pressurize the petitioner to meet the demand of Rs.52,500/-(rupees fifty two thousand five hundred only) which was claimed by Dr.(Mrs.) Dheera Das, proprietor, Sudha Nursing Home towards lawyer’s fees in the cases and also being satisfied that the impugned order is nothing but an abuse of process, I am inclined to invoke my inherent power under section 482 of Cr.P.C. in order to prevent miscarriage of justice and accordingly, quash the impugned order dated 03.08.2004 and the entire criminal proceeding in I.C.C. No. 13 of 2004 pending on the file of S.D.J.M., Panposh, Rourkela. 10. Accordingly, the CRLMC application is allowed.