Research › Search › Judgment

Orissa High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 266 (ORI)

C. K. Vaidya v. Narendra Chandra Kalua

2018-03-19

S.K.SAHOO

body2018
JUDGMENT : S. K. SAHOO, J. 1. Heard Mr. Debraj Mohanty, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. Golekha Parida, learned Counsel for the opposite party. 2. The petitioner C.K. Vaidya has filed this application under section 482 of Cr.P.C. challenging the impugned order dated 20.02.2006 passed by the learned S.D.J.M., Bhubaneswar in 1.C.C. No.2815 of 2005 in taking cognizance of the offences under sections 294/355/356/420/467/506/452/34 of the Indian Penal Code and issuance of process against him. 3. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that as per the complaint petition, the occurrence in question took place on 18.06.2003 at Hotel Richi, Station Square, Bhubaneswar and the complaint petition was filed on 31.08.2005. It is further contended that from the side of the petitioner, a complaint petition was filed before the learned J.M.F.C. (A.Q), Pune which was registered as R.C.C. No.318 of 2003 in which the opposite party-complainant was the accused no.2 and just as a counter blast to such complaint petition, this complaint case was filed before the learned S.D.J.M., Bhubaneswar. It is further contended that the entire allegation is against co-accused persons Saroj Kumar Nanda, Sankar Mitra and Partha Dey who are the accused nos.2, 3 and 4 in the complaint petition and bald allegation has been made that the entire thing has been done at the instance of the petitioner. He further contended that though the case was posted for conducting the inquiry as contemplated under section 202 Cr.P.C., the complainant did not produce any witness and accordingly, the inquiry was closed on 03.2.2006 and on the next date i.e. on 20.02.2006, the impugned order was passed. It is further contended that the ingredients of offences under which the cognizance has been taken are not attracted so far as the petitioner is concerned and therefore, invoking the power under section 482 Cr.P.C., the same should be quashed. 4. Mr. Golekha Parida, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite party supported the impugned order. 5. In case of Neelu Chopra and another -Vrs.-Bharti reported in (2010) 45 OCR (SC) 99, it is held as follows:- “5. In order to lodge a proper complaint, mere mention of the sections and the language of those sections is not be all and end of the matter. 5. In case of Neelu Chopra and another -Vrs.-Bharti reported in (2010) 45 OCR (SC) 99, it is held as follows:- “5. In order to lodge a proper complaint, mere mention of the sections and the language of those sections is not be all and end of the matter. What is required to be brought to the notice of the court is the particulars of the offence committed by each and every accused and the role played by each and every accused in committing of that offence. When we see the complaint, the complaint is sadly vague. It does not show as to which accused has committed what offence and what is the exact role played by these appellants in the commission of offence. There could be said something against Rajesh, as the allegations are made against him more precisely but he is no more and has already expired. Under such circumstances, it would be an abuse of process of law to allow the prosecution to continue against the aged parents of Rajesh, the present appellants herein on the basis of vague and general complaint which is silent about the precise acts of the appellants.” 6. In view of the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and in absence of any overt act alleged against the petitioner and vague allegation against him relating to the commission of offence and taking into account the inordinate delay in lodging the complaint petition as well as the pendency of a complaint petition against the complainant at the instance of the petitioner before the learned J.M.F.C. (A.Q), Pune, I am of the view that the continuance of criminal proceeding against the petitioner before the Court below would be an abuse of process of law and therefore, I am inclined to accept the prayer made by the petitioner in this application and quash the impugned order dated 20.02.2006 passed by the learned S.D.J.M., Bhubaneswar in 1.C.C. No.2815 of 2005 so far as the petitioner is concerned. This order shall not affect the continuance of complaint proceeding against the co-accused persons. 7. With the aforesaid observation, the CRLMC is allowed.