Research › Search › Judgment

Orissa High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 641 (ORI)

Anil Kumar Pradhan v. State of Odisha

2019-11-25

A.K.MISHRA

body2019
JUDGMENT : A. K. Mishra, J. In this proceeding U/s.482 Cr.P.C. the Lis in C.T. Case No.3786 of 2014, arising out of Saheed Nagar P.S. Case No.455 of 2014, pending in the court of learned S.D.J.M., Bhubaneswar is sought to be quashed. 2. On 2.9.2014 the opposite party no.4, Sukant Sethi deposited a Cheque in the State Bank of India, Mancheswar Industrial Estate Branch in the account of one Smt. Dali Dei (O.P. No.5). The cheque was issued by Sri Arijeet Doss Mullick, drawn at S.B.I., La Martiniere Branch, Kolkata. On 05.09.2014 Sri Mullick lodged complaint that he had never issued any such cheque. On being contacted by the bank officials, Sukanta Sethi disclosed that he received the cheque from one School teacher of Rangamatia School. The F.I.R. dtd.25.09.2014 was registered as Saheednagar police station vide P.S. Case no. 455 dtd.30.09.2014. The present petitioner being the teacher of Rangamatia School was taken into custody and investigation ensued. 2-A. In order to overcome 167(2) Cr.P.C, the investigating officer filed charge-sheet no.463 dtd.30.09.2014 against two accused persons, namely, Anil Kumar Pradhan, the present petitioner and Sukanta Sethi. Basing upon that report, learned S.D.J.M., took cognizance on 24.11.2014 of the offence U/s.420, 467, 468 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. It is not disputed that further investigation U/s.137(8) Cr.P.C. is still under progress. 2-B. After due process of supply of copy U/s.207 Cr.p.C., on 12.12.2014 charge was framed and accused did not plead guilty. 3. On 1.11.2017 petitioner filed CRLMC No.3175 of 2017 before this court invoking jurisdiction U/s.482 Cr.P.C. seeking to quash the order dtd.6.9.2017 of learned J.M.F.C., Bhubaneswar issuing NBW against him. That case was disposed of on 17.1.2018 giving direction to release the petitioner on bail on his surrender. It appears that on 29.1.2018 the petitioner had availed such fresh bail. 3-A. The present proceeding U/s.482 Cr.P.C. was filed on 10.08.2018 seeking quashing of the whole proceeding on the ground that there is no material prima facie available to implicate the present petitioner with the alleged offence. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner files decision reported in 2007 (2) Criminal Court Cases 712 (Rajasthan), Dilip Kothari Vrs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. to contend that when essential ingredients of offence of cheating or criminal conspiracy is not made out, the F.I.R. can be quashed against the petitioner while investigating agency can proceed against others. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner files decision reported in 2007 (2) Criminal Court Cases 712 (Rajasthan), Dilip Kothari Vrs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. to contend that when essential ingredients of offence of cheating or criminal conspiracy is not made out, the F.I.R. can be quashed against the petitioner while investigating agency can proceed against others. He also relies upon decision reported in 2011(1) Criminal Court Cases 33 (S.C.), Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Co. Ltd. & Anr. Vrs. Datar Switchgear Ltd. & Ors. wherein it is stated that when the allegation in the F.I.R. or the complaint taken at its face value and accepted in their entirety do not constitute the offence, the proceeding can be quashed invoking powers U/s.482 Cr.P.C. In the said decision it is also mentioned that powers under the said provision have to be exercised sparingly with caution to secure the ends of justice and to prevent abuse of process of court. Learned counsel for the petitioner also relies upon a decision reported in 2014(1) Crl. Court Cases 845 (Rajasthan), Sita Ram Suiwal & Anr. Vrs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. (Rajasthan High Court) wherein the ratio of Bhajanlal’s case reported in 1992 Suppl. (1) SCC 335 has been considered and as the fact of that case was coming under clause (VII) that is “manifestly attended with mala fide”, the proceeding was ordered to be quashed. In another decision relied upon by learned counsel for the petitioner reported in 2012 Crl. L. J. 2189, R. B. Shrivastava Vrs. Special Police Establishment Lokayukt, Gwalior (Madhya Pradesh High Court) (Gwalior Bench) it is stated that condition precedent to the commencement of investigation U/s.157 Cr.P.C. is that the F.I.R. must disclose prima facie cognizable offence. 5. Now descending to the facts at hand, on careful perusal of the F.I.R. and charge-sheet I am of the considered opinion that it could not be said that there was no cognizable offence revealed from the F.I.R. as because cheque of somebody was deposited without his knowledge in the Bank and money was encashed which involves criminal intention. It is not necessary that a meticulous analysis of the case should be done before the trial to find out whether the case would end in conviction or acquittal. In the decision reported in (2019) 74 OCR (SC) 131, Sau. Kamal Shivaji Pokarnekar vrs. State of Maharashtra & Ors. It is not necessary that a meticulous analysis of the case should be done before the trial to find out whether the case would end in conviction or acquittal. In the decision reported in (2019) 74 OCR (SC) 131, Sau. Kamal Shivaji Pokarnekar vrs. State of Maharashtra & Ors. Hon’ble Apex Court has held as follows:- “6. Defences that may be available, or facts / aspects which when established during the trial, may lead to acquittal, or not grounds for quashing the complaint at the threshold. At that stage, the only question relevant is whether the averments in the complaint spell out the ingredients of a criminal offence or not.” 6. As far as connecting link of the present accused with such criminal act is concerned, prima facie he was the source from whom the cheque was routed through the Bank. 6-A. Further the petitioner did not pray to quash the proceeding in the earlier proceeding U/s.482 Cr.P.C. even though relief was sought to lancinate the order of NBWA on the averment that initial statements prima facie manifest the falsehood of the claim. 7. Fact remains that the petitioner allowed the court to proceed for a considerable period and only after 4 years he preferred to knock the door of inherent jurisdiction to quash the Lower Court proceeding which he participated questioning a stage earlier in this court. Thus seen, filing of this application U/s.482 Cr.P.C. suffers from vices of the principle of delay and latches. In this regard it is apt to refer to a decision reported in 1990 Crl.LJ 1110, Bata @ Others Vrs. Anama Behera wherein this Court has held as follows:- “Though for filing an application under section 482 there is no limitation, the application should be filed within a reasonable time, so that the progress of the case is not disturbed at a belated stage. A revision petition challenging an order can be filed within 90 days from the date of the order, similarly, a period of 90 days which is at par with a revision petition should be treated as reasonable time for filing an application U/s.482 and if it is filed beyond the period of 90 days, the applicant would have to explain the cause of the delay.” The said decision is also relied upon by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Rajesh Chetwal Vrs. State (CRLMC No.1656 of 2011) (Date of decision 24.08.2011). 8. Regards being had to the above facts, I am not inclined to quash the proceeding in C.T. Case No.3786 of 2014, arising out of Saheed Nagar P.S. Case No.455 of 2014, pending in the court of learned S.D.J.M., Bhubaneswar invoking jurisdiction U/s.482 Cr.P.C. In the result the CRLMC stands dismissed. Urgent certified copy as per rules.