SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2007 Supreme(Ori) 245

High Court Of Orissa
B. P. DAS AND. MAHANTY, JJ.
MURALIDHAR SATPATHY - Appellant
Versus
STATE OF ORISSA - Respondent
W. A.  78  Of  2006
Decided On : 04/10/2007

Advocates Appeared:
GANGADHAR RATH, P.K.Ray, PITAMBAR ACHARYA, S.R.PATIL

The central legal point established in the judgment is that allegations must have sufficient grounds to proceed against an accused, and absurd allegations may lead to the quashing of cognizance.

Headnote:

Criminal Proceeding - Quashing of Cognizance - N.. Act, P. C. - [Section 138, Section 420/34, N.. Act, P. C.] - The court discussed the application of the proposition of law formulated by the Hon'ble Supreme court in the case of State of Haryana and others v. Ch. Bhajan Lal and others, AIR 1992 SC 604 and the judgment rendered in the case of haridaya Ranjan Pd. Verma and others v. State of Bihar and another, AIR 2000 SC 2341 : (2000 Cri LJ 2983). The court analyzed the F.. R. and the Case Diary to determine the allegations and evidence, and concluded that the allegations against the appellant were so absurd that no reasonable person could reach a conclusion that there was sufficient ground to proceed against the appellant. The court quashed the order of cognizance under Section 420 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code against the appellant.

Fact of the Case:

The appellant filed a writ appeal against an order partly allowing the same by quashing cognizance under Section 138, N.. Act, but declining to quash a criminal proceeding against the appellant under Section 420/34,. P. C. The F.. R. revealed an alleged transaction of 'loan' between the informant and the appellant's son, containing allegations of non-refund of the loan and abusive behavior.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the allegations against the appellant were so absurd that no reasonable person could conclude there was sufficient ground to proceed against the appellant. The court quashed the order of cognizance under Section 420 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code against the appellant.

Issues: The issues revolved around the application of legal propositions, the nature of the allegations in the F.. R., and the sufficiency of grounds to proceed against the appellant.

Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the absurdity of the allegations against the appellant and the lack of sufficient grounds to proceed against the appellant under Section 420 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code.

Final Decision: The court quashed the order of cognizance under Section 420 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code against the appellant.

MAHANTY, J.

( 1 ) THE appellant murlidhar Satpathy, has filed the present writ appeal against an order dated 23-11-2006 passed by a learned single Judge of this Court in Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 371 of 2006, partly allowing the same by quashing cognizance under Section 138, N.. Act, but declining to quash a criminal proceeding against the appellant under Section 420/34,. P. C. , which is now pending in the Court of the learned S. D. J. M. , bhubaneswar (arising out of G. R. Case No. 3507 of 2004 ).

( 2 ) THE Writ Petition (Cr.) No. 371 of 2006 was disposed of by the learned single Judge of this Court vide Order dated 23-11-2006, inter alia, with the following observations :

"in the instant case, as transpires from the F.. R. and the Case Diary, in fact, there is no Real Estate Business of the petitioner and accused Pradeep Satpathy or either of them. Accordingly, the decision cited above cannot be attracted to the present case. In the result, the proceeding initiated against the petitioner including the order of taking cognizance under Section 138 of N.. Act is quashed, but so far as the proceeding under Section 420/34,. P. C. is concerned, it shall continue against him. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. "

( 3 ) SRI G. Rath, Sr. Advocate, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that, while exercising its jurisdiction under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India as well as under Section 482, Cr. P. C. for quashing a criminal proceeding, the learned single judge, has failed to apply the proposition of law formulated by the Hon'ble Supreme court in the case of State of Haryana and others v. Ch. Bhajan Lal and others, AIR 1992 SC 604 and has not considered, whether the allegations made in the F.. R. and the evidence collected by the police are so absurd that no reasonable person can ever reach a conclusion that there is s ufficient ground to proceed against the accused. He further submitted that in the present case, the principles evolved in Ch. Bhajan lal's case (supra) should have been applied. He further submitted that the learned single judge failed to appreciate the true scope of the judgment rendered in the case of haridaya Ranjan Pd. Verma and others v. State of Bihar and another, AIR 2000 SC 2341 : (2000 Cri LJ 2983), inasmuch as, since the ingredients of Section 420/34,. P. C. have nejther been expressly stated nor indirectly suggested in the F.. R. , so as to constitute an offence of cheating by the appellant, the criminal proceeding against the appellant ought to be quashed.

( 4 ) SRI Rath, learned counsel for the appellant drew the attention of the Court to the F.. R. in the present case and the same is extracted hereinbelow :

??????????? To

The officer-in-Charge,

Lingaraj P. S. , Old Town , Bhubaneswar .

Sir,

With no constraint, I am informing you to take immediate action that in the month of october, 2003, one Pradip Satpathy , s/o. Muralidhar Satpathy , 20, Housing Board Colony, ? ageswartangi , BBSR told me that his father being a Retd. Chief Engineer, has started a real ? estate business'. For that he needs some cash urgently which he will return within one month. He asked me to help in this regard. Accordingly, I went to his home and consulted with his Father who also asked me to invest. Then, I arranged about 14,50,000 (Fourteen Lakh fifty Thousand) from my friends arid handed over to him in his father's presence in good faith and believe. But unfortunately, he did not keep his promise and did not return my money after several requests. During this period, he had given me several dates to return the money, but every time he failed taking one plea and the other. Today when I went to his house at 2 p. m. and asked him to return my money, he abused me in filthy language and threatened me to do away with my life. Having lost all hopes, I am filing this F.. R. for immediate legal action against him.

?????? Yours faithfully,

Sd /-

28-10-2004

Bhubaneswar ???????????? ????????????????????






























Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

AI

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top