Research › Search › Judgment

Orissa High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 475 (ORI)

Manorama Singh v. State Of Orissa

2019-07-22

S.K.SAHOO

body2019
JUDGMENT : S.K. Sahoo, J. The petitioner Manorama Singh has filed this application under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for quashing the impugned order dated 04.12.2017 passed by the learned S.D.J.M., Jagatsinghpur in G.R. Case No.806 of 2017 in taking cognizance of offences under sections 420/468/467/465 of the Indian Penal Code and issuance of process against her. 2. It appears that one Laxmi Narayan Singh filed a complaint petition in the Court of learned S.D.J.M., Jagatsinghpur against the petitioner and one Kailash Chandra Sahoo for commission of offences under sections 420/468/465/467/294/506/34 of the Indian Penal Code which was registered in I.C.C. Case No.181 of 2017. The learned S.D.J.M., Jagatsinghpur sent the complaint petition to the Inspector in Charge of Raghunathpur police station under section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. for registration of the F.I.R. and for investigation and accordingly, Raghunathpur P.S. Case No.94 of 2017 was registered on 02.03.2017 under sections 420/468/465/467/294/506/34 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. After completion of investigation, charge sheet has been submitted only against the petitioner under sections 420/468/467/465 of the Indian Penal Code, on the basis of which the impugned order dated 04.12.2017 was passed. 4. It appears from the narration in the complaint petition that the land appertaining the Khata No.19 of Mouza Gokulapur belonged to one Sitaram Singh who died leaving his son Bhagabat Singh and daughter Anandi @ Adaramani Singh as his legal heirs to succeed his entire property. Bhagabat Singh and his wife died issueless leaving Anandi @ Adarmani Singh as their sole successor. During the consolidation operation, the properties under Khata No.19 was recorded in the name of Anandi Singh but wrongly recorded in the name of the petitioner. It is the further case of the complainant that Anandi Singh died in the year 2009 leaving behind the complainant Laxmi Narayan Singh and another son and daughters as her legal heirs. During the consolidation operation, the properties under Khata No.19 was recorded in the name of Anandi Singh but wrongly recorded in the name of the petitioner. It is the further case of the complainant that Anandi Singh died in the year 2009 leaving behind the complainant Laxmi Narayan Singh and another son and daughters as her legal heirs. Since the complainant was residing at Bhubaneswar, taking advantage of his absence, the petitioner managed the record her name wrongly showing herself as the sole daughter of Anandi Singh by gaining over the Tahasil staff and R.I., Chikinia and with the help of accused no.2 Kailash Chandra Sahoo mutated the land in her name and obtained the R.O.R. and by taking advantage of wrong recording, the petitioner transferred the property in favour of accused no.2 mutated Kailash Chandra Sahoo by way of registered sale deed on 06.12.2017. It is the further case of the complainant that when he came to know about the same, he collected the certified copy of the records and then called the accused persons for settlement but they refused for such settlement rather scolded him and threatened him with dire consequences. 5. Mr. Ramanikanta Pattnaik, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the materials available on record indicate that a part of property in question was transferred by way of a registered gift deed by Jaina Singh, the widow of Sitaram Singh in the year 1983 in favour of the petitioner and similarly Rukmani Dei who is the daughter-in-law of Sitaram Singh being the wife of his son Bhagabat Singh sold the rest of the properties to the petitioner by way of two registered sale deeds, one executed in the year 1984 and the other in the year 1987. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that after the petitioner came into the ownership of such properties due to the execution of gift deed and sale deeds, she was in lawful possession of the property and sold the same to the accused no.2 Kailash Chandra Sahoo on 06.02.2017. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that after the petitioner came into the ownership of such properties due to the execution of gift deed and sale deeds, she was in lawful possession of the property and sold the same to the accused no.2 Kailash Chandra Sahoo on 06.02.2017. It is further contended that after the petitioner became the registered owner of the property, neither the complainant nor anybody challenged such sale deed and gift deeds and at a belated stage, the criminal proceeding has been instituted with malafide intention and since the dispute is basically civil in nature, the criminal proceeding should be quashed in the interest of justice. 6. Mr. Jyoti Prakash Patra, learned Addl. Standing Counsel for the State on the other hand placed the first information report and submitted that the investigating officer has rightly submitted charge sheet and there is no infirmity in the impugned order of taking cognizance passed by the learned S.D.J.M., Jagatsinghpur. 7. Considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the respective parties and perusing the complaint petition as well as the documents which are annexed to this application, it appears that the petitioner became owner of the property in question since long by virtue of the execution of the sale deed and gift deeds and the complainant who happens to be the son of the daughter of the original owner Sitaram Singh has not challenged such sale deeds or gift deed before the competent Court at any point of time. During course of investigation, the allegation against accused no.2 Kailash Chandra Sahoo which was leveled in the complaint petition was not found to be correct and therefore, charge sheet was submitted only against the petitioner. Prima facie evidence is lacking that the petitioner committed any act of cheating which is defined under section 415 of the Indian Penal Code or forgery as defined under section 463 of the Indian Penal Code. The dispute between the parties is basically civil in nature. It appears that without resorting to the civil remedy as available under law, the complainant in order to create pressure on the petitioner for obvious reasons has instituted the criminal proceeding. The dispute between the parties is basically civil in nature. It appears that without resorting to the civil remedy as available under law, the complainant in order to create pressure on the petitioner for obvious reasons has instituted the criminal proceeding. Since the criminal proceeding has been instituted with malafide intention and the ingredients of the offences are not attracted and the dispute between the parties is basically civil in nature, I am of the humble view that continuance of such proceeding would amount to abuse of process and therefore, invoking any inherent powers under section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code, I accept the prayer made in this application and direct the quashing of the impugned order dated 04.12.2017 passed by the learned S.D.J.M., Jagatsinghpur in G.R. Case No.806 of 2017 and the entire criminal proceeding of the said case. 8. Accordingly, the CRLMC application is allowed.