Research › Search › Judgment

Orissa High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 643 (ORI)

Kulamani Khatua v. Darpa Ganjan Pattnaik

2019-11-26

A.K.MISHRA

body2019
ORDER : Dr. A.K. Mishra, J. 1. Heard Mr. K Khatua, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. A.P. Bose learned counsel for the opposite party. 2. Prayer is made to quash the order dated 9.4.2015 (Annexure-7) passed by the S.D.J.M., Patnagarh in taking cognizance for the offence under section 500 of the Indian Penal Code in 1CC No. 60 of 2014 and proceeding against the present petitioner as an accused. 3. The case of the petitioner in short is that he was working as an Executive Officer in Patnagarh N A.C., during the relevant period. The opposite party - complainant had occupied a slum quarters under N.A.C.. As per decision of General Body of the N.A.C., the Executive Officer -petitioner issued notice on 26.5.2014, 1.7.2014 and 25.7.2014 asking the opposite party to vacate the said quarters vide Annexrs-1, 2 and 3. Also vide Annexure-4 on 18.8.2014 notice was given to the petitioner along with nine others as they had not vacated their respective quarters. The opposite party - complainant filed W.P.(C).12274 of 2014 in which order was passed on 21.8.2014 directing the petitioner to vacate the quarters by end of March, 2015 and till then not to take any coercive action against him. 4. It is the specific case of the petitioner that being aggrieved with the notice for vacation which was issued by him as the NAC Executive Officer in the official capacity, the complainant has filed Complaint Case in 1CC No. 60 of 2014 on 27.12.2014 mentioning the date of occurrence as 23.8.2014 alleging that on occurrence date he was threatened and forced to vacate the quarters. 5. For ready reference the relevant vernacular portion is extracted below:- " HIGH COURT ORDER DEITHILE DEITHANTU AME PARE DEKHIBA. EHI GHARAAPANACHHADIDIANTU. EHI GHARARASABU ASBABA PATRA BAHARAKU PHINGI DIA. PARE JAHA HEBADEKHA JIBA" (Translated into English by Court:-" High Court may have given order. We will see later. You vacate this house. Throwaway all the belonging of this house. We will se later what will be done.") 6. Even though the complaint was filed for offence under section 448, 500, 506, 511 of IPC, the learned SDJM after making inquiry under section 202 Cr.P.C. took cognizance under section 500 I.P.C. only. 7. We will see later. You vacate this house. Throwaway all the belonging of this house. We will se later what will be done.") 6. Even though the complaint was filed for offence under section 448, 500, 506, 511 of IPC, the learned SDJM after making inquiry under section 202 Cr.P.C. took cognizance under section 500 I.P.C. only. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that no offence is prima facie made out to attract offence under section 500 of IPC and no sanction under section 197 Cr.P.C. has been taken as the accused had allegedly committed overt act in due discharge of his official duty. Learned counsel for the opposite party repelled the above contention stating that the accused was threatened and being an advocate was humiliated in the eye of others despite the order of the Hon'ble Court. The protection under section 197 Cr.P.C. is not warranted for the violation of High Court order in committing overt act. 8. It is indisputable that the petitioner was working as an Executive Officer and in that capacity he had issued notice for vacation of the quarters. The opposite party is an advocate. 9. This Court's order directing not to take coercive action was passed on 21.8.2014. The complaint was filed on 27.12.2014 alleging the occurrence dated 23.8.2014. The delay is not explained. In the circumstances, where offence under section 500 IPC is alleged, the delay strikes at the root of imputation intending to harm the reputation. 10. Having gone through the vernacular Odia imputation, I am of the opinion that the same is not per se defamatory in nature. The violation of any order of the Hon'ble court may amount to contempt but cannot be treated as defamatory to the person concerned at the instance of a person other than the court concerned. 11. Above all, the overt act alleged in the backdrop of the discharge of official duty needs to be protected under section 197 Cr.P.C. and no such sanction has been obtained prior to take cognizance. 12. Considering all the aspects, I am of the considered opinion that the continuance of the proceeding in 1CC Case No. 60 of 2014 of the court of S.D.J.M., Patnagarh would be an abuse of the process of the Court. Hence, the order dated 9.4.2015 (Annexure-7) passed by the S.D.J.M., Patnagarh is hereby quashed. Accordingly, the CRLMC is disposed of. 12. Considering all the aspects, I am of the considered opinion that the continuance of the proceeding in 1CC Case No. 60 of 2014 of the court of S.D.J.M., Patnagarh would be an abuse of the process of the Court. Hence, the order dated 9.4.2015 (Annexure-7) passed by the S.D.J.M., Patnagarh is hereby quashed. Accordingly, the CRLMC is disposed of. Issue urgent certified copy on proper application.