Research › Search › Judgment

Orissa High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 405 (ORI)

Niranjan Samantray v. State Of Orissa

2019-06-17

S.K.SAHOO

body2019
JUDGMENT S.K. Sahoo, J. - Heard Mr. Prakash Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Partha Sarathi Nayak, learned counsel for the opposite parties nos.2 to 5. 2. In this application under Section 482 Cr.P.C., 1973 the petitioner-Niranjan Samantray has sought for quashing of the impugned order dated 10.07.2015 passed in I.C.C. Case No.2944 of 2014, whereby, the learned S.D.J.M., Bhubaneswar has been pleased to take cognizance for the offences punishable under sections 420/423/467/468/ 506/34 of the Indian Penal Code and issue process against him. 3. It appears that the opposite parties nos.2 to 5 filed a complaint petition in the Court of learned S.D.J.M., Bhubaneswar against the petitioner as well as one Raghunath Pradhan alleging, inter alia, that the petitioner is the registered power of attorney holder of one Raghunath Pradhan who sold them lands by executing four sale deeds in the year 2008 but they could not get possession of the lands till 2014 and it is the case of the complainants that one Purna Chandra Moharana is the actual registered owner of those lands and the accused persons have fabricated the documents and sold the lands in their favour. 4. After filing the complaint petition, the initial statement of the complainant was recorded and the learned Magistrate conducted enquiry contemplated under section 202 Cr.P.C., 1973 during course of which, four witnesses were examined and after perusing the complaint petition, initial statement of the complainant and the statements of the witnesses, the learned Magistrate found prima facie case under sections 420/423/467/468/506/34 of the Indian Penal Code against the petitioner and co-accused Raghunath Pradhan and accordingly, took cognizance of offences and issued process. 5. Mr. Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that after the execution of the sale deeds in the year 2008, the complainants' remained silent till 2014 and then they suddenly came with a case that the co-accused Raghunath Pradhan is not the recorded owner of the land, which were sold to them. It is further contended that none of the witnesses examined during enquiry, in fact, stated that Purna Chandra Moharana is the recorded owner of those lands and no document has also been produced before the learned S.D.J.M., Bhubaneswar in that respect and therefore, the case of the complainants that Raghunath Pradhan is not the recorded owner and that there has been forgery and fabrication of documents cannot be accepted. Learned counsel further brought to the notice of this Court the documents vide Annexure-2 series to show that Raghunath Pradhan purchased the land from his vendor Satya Narayan Parida and also the registered power of attorney (Annexure-3) executed in favour of the petitioner by the said Raghunath Pradhan. 6. Perused the statements of the witnesses recorded under section 202 Cr.P.C., 1973 I find that even though in the complaint petition, it is mentioned that Purna Chandra Moharana and others are the rightful owner of the scheduled property but none of the witnesses examined have stated so in their statements recorded under section 202 Cr.P.C., 1973 and no document has also been proved before the learned S.D.J.M., Bhubaneswar during enquiry to substantiate that the co-accused Raghunath Pradhan is not the owner of the scheduled property rather Purna Chandra Moharana and others were the rightful owners. In absence of proving such documents and in absence of adducing clinching evidence during course of enquiry, the case of the complainants that the coaccused Raghunath Pradhan is not the recorded owner of the lands is not acceptable, particularly, in view of the documents filed by the petitioner to substantiate that Raghunath Pradhan is the recorded owner. 7. Law is well settled that if on accepting the prosecution case in its entirety, no prima facie case is made out, this Court can exercise its inherent power under section 482 Cr.P.C., 1973 to quash the proceeding in the interest of justice. On going through the available materials on record, I find that the ingredients of the offences under sections 420/423/467/468/506/34 of the Indian Penal Code are not attracted against the petitioner and non-handing over the possession of the lands to the complainants which were sold by way of four registered sale deeds as such cannot make out a criminal case against the petitioner. 8. Therefore, I am inclined to accept the prayer made in this application and quash the criminal proceeding against the petitioner and accordingly, the CRLMC is allowed. 9. Urgent certified copy of this order be granted on proper application.