Back
2021 Supreme(Ori) 250
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK
S.K. Sahoo, J.
Lalit Mohan Patnaik - Appellant
Versus
Sadasiba Mohapatra & Ors. - Respondents
Criminal Appeal No. 52 of 1993
Decided On : 07-01-2021
Dipak Ranjan Parida, Advocate
The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of section 203 of Cr.P.C. to dismiss a complaint for lack of sufficient grounds for proceeding.
Headnote:
Criminal Appeal - Refusal to Take Cognizance - Indian Penal Code - Section 143, 382, 451, 504, 395 read with section 109 - Summary of the acts and sections referenced and discussed by the court: The court discussed the refusal to take cognizance of the offences under sections 143, 382, 451, 504, 395 read with section 109 of the Indian Penal Code. The key legal provisions discussed include the grounds for dismissal of a complaint under section 203 of Cr.P.C., the requirement for recording reasons for dismissal, and the right to be heard in a revision petition before the High Court or Sessions Judge.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant filed a complaint alleging that the respondents forcibly entered his house, removed valuable properties, and wrongfully restrained his family members. The court found that the complaint lacked sufficient grounds for proceeding and dismissed it under section 203 of Cr.P.C.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the complaint did not inspire confidence and lacked sufficient grounds for proceeding. It noted the delay in filing the complaint and concluded that no offence had been committed by the accused persons under the Indian Penal Code.
Issues: The issues revolved around the alleged forcible entry, removal of properties, and wrongful restraint by the respondents, as well as the sufficiency of grounds for proceeding with the complaint.
Ratio Decidendi: The court applied the provisions of section 203 of Cr.P.C. to dismiss the complaint, emphasizing the requirement to record reasons for dismissal and the discretionary power of the Magistrate to conduct an inquiry or investigation.
Final Decision: The Criminal Appeal stands dismissed.
JUDGMENT
S. K. Sahoo, J. - The matter is taken up through Video Conferencing.
This appeal has been filed by the appellant Lalit Mohan Patnaik challenging the impugned order dated 13.09.1984 passed by the learned S.D.J.M., Khurda in 1.C.C. Case No.74 of 1984 in refusing to take cognizance of the offences under sections 143, 382, 451, 504, 395 read with section 109 of the Indian Penal Code and also in dismissing the complaint petition.
2. The appellant filed an application under section 378(4) of Cr.P.C. seeking for special leave to prefer an appeal against the aforesaid impugned order dated 13.09.1984 vide Criminal Misc. Case No.796 of 1984 and special leave was granted as per order dated 18.01.1993, whereafter this appeal was preferred which was admitted on 11.03.1993.
3. None appears on behalf of the appellant so also on behalf of the respondents.
4. Mr. Dipak Ranjan Parida, learned Additional Standing Counsel in absence of the learned counsel for the appellant as well as learned counsel for the respondents placed the complaint petition, the statements of the witnesses and the impugned order.
5. On perusal of the order sheet of this Court dated 11.10.1993 and the consequential order dated 05.04.1994, it reveals that this appeal has been dismissed as against respondents nos.9 to 12.
6. The appellant Lalit Mohan Patnaik is the complainant in I.C.C. Case No.74 of 1984, which was filed in the Court of learned S.D.J.M., Khurda. In the said complaint petition, it is alleged that Satyabadi Pattnaik and Trailokyanath Pattnaik are two brothers and they were separated by metes and bounds since long and their possession was also separately recorded in the C.S. R.O.R. The residential rooms of the appellant in village Anda were in his exclusive physical possession, where all the properties given in the schedule of the complaint petition were kept under his possession. The appellant was serving as an Art Instructor under the State Institute for Rural Development at Bhubaneswar and was staying at Bhubaneswar with his wife whereas his mother and sister's son Atulya Kumar Patnaik were residing in the village house. On 06.06.1984 the appellant got information that the respondents entered inside his house and removed all the movable properties worth of Rs.50,595/- (rupees fifty thousand five hundred ninety five) from his house by force and immediately thereafter, he came to the village and ascertained that on 05.06.1984 after sunset, the respondents came to his village in three jeeps and got down in front of his house and knocked at his door. When his sister's son Atulya Kumar Patnaik opened the door, the respondents, namely, Sadasiba Mahapatra, Rabindranath Mishra, Debidutta Mohanty and Basant Kumar Panda told him that they had come to attach the movable properties from the house of the appellant. Atulya Kumar Patnaik told them that the owner of the house being absent and he is at Bhubaneswar, he would not allow the attachment and removal of properties from the house. At this, Atulya Kumar Patnaik was forcibly dragged by the respondents to the village road and under their orders, respondent Bhagaban Mohanty, S.I. of Police kept him under wrongful restraint and confinement through the help of A.P.R. constables whose names were not known to him. Thereafter, the respondents nos.1 to 9 along with twenty other persons, who were armed with lathis, forcibly entered inside the house of the appellant. When the mother of the appellant and others cried out loudly in fear against the illegal action of the accused persons, they were abused in filthy language and were threatened with assault and were also driven out of the house. Thereafter, the respondents removed all the valuable properties as per the list given in the schedule of the complaint petition by breaking open his trunks, which were five in number, almirah and locks of the rooms. While removing the articles from the almirah, the cups, plates and other articles of China clay and glasses were also broke
