2023 Supreme(Ori) 112
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
R.K. Pattanaik, J.
Rushi Behera & Anr. – Appellants
Versus
State of Odisha – Respondent
CRLMC No. 3038 of 2015
Decided On : 28-02-2023
Mr. Arun Kumar Acharya, Advocate, for the Appellant; Mr. Tapas Kumar Praharaj, SC, for the Respondent
The criminal action should be examined during trial, leaving the decision to the lower court.
Headnote:
Fraud - Criminal Proceedings - IPC 419, 465, 471, 420, 468 - The court discussed the allegations of fraud and impersonation against the petitioners in connection with the sale deeds of 1997 and 2008. The petitioners contended that the transactions were genuine and confirmed by a civil court's decree. The State argued that the criminal proceeding should continue based on evidence collected during investigation. The court found that while the civil court decreed in favor of the petitioners, the criminal action should be examined during trial, leaving the decision to the lower court.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners challenged the order taking cognizance of offences under IPC Sections 419, 465, 471, 420, 468 based on allegations of fraud and impersonation in connection with sale deeds of 1997 and 2008.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the civil court decreed in favor of the petitioners, confirming the transactions as genuine, but held that the criminal action should be examined during trial, leaving the decision to the lower court.
Issues: Allegations of fraud and impersonation in connection with sale deeds of 1997 and 2008, and whether the criminal proceeding should be quashed based on the civil court's decree.
Ratio Decidendi: While the civil court decreed in favor of the petitioners, the criminal action should be examined during trial, leaving the decision to the lower court.
Final Decision: The CRLMC stands disposed of subject to liberty allowed in favor of the petitioners.
JUDGMENT
1. The petitioners have challenged the impugned order dated 22nd December, 2013 under Annexure-2 passed in G.R. Case No.923 of 2010 by the learned J.M.F.C., Keonjhar, whereby, cognizance of the offences under Sections 419, 465, 471, 420 and 468 IPC has been taken as against them on the grounds inter alia that the same is bad in law and hence, therefore, liable to be interferred with and quashed in the interest of justice.
2. An FIR was lodged by the informant alleging mischief and fraud against the petitioners for having managed to obtain sale deeds in 1997 and 2008 which is by perpetrating impersonation purportedly executed by the recorded owner. The details of the allegations are described in the FIR as at Annexure-1. Consequent upon the report being lodged, Nayakote P.S. Case No.27 of 2010 was registered and the petitioners were finally chargesheeted in the year 2012 leading to the passing of the impugned order under Annexure-2.
3. Heard Mr. Acharya, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. Praharaj, learned counsel for the State-opposite party.
4. According to the petitioners, there has been no impersonation in the transaction of the year 2008 as has been alleged by the informant since petitioner No.1 is the vendee having purchased the land from the recorded owner. The other property was also purchased by petitioner No.1 in 1997, which according to the petitioners, was again sold to an outsider. The petitioners contend that petitioner No.1 is the owner of the lands in question and while effecting the transactions, no fraud or manipulation was employed but with false allegations, the report under Annexure-1 was lodged. Mr. Acharya, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the dispute is civil in nature and that apart, the title of petitioner No.1 vis-a-vis the lands purchased under the alleged sale deeds has been confirmed by a decree of the civil court in C.S. No.120 of 2008 vide judgment dated 5th January, 2018 of the learned Senior Civil Judge, Keonjhar. The other suit in C.S. No. 168 of 2010 instituted by the subsequent transferee was initially stayed under Section 10 CPC and was finally disposed of by the civil court's order dated 1st July, 2018 with the rejection of the plaint in terms of Order 7 Rule 11 CPC. Hence, according to Mr. Acharya, the fraud which is alleged against the petitioners by the informant was not established, whereas, the title in respect of the lands under the sale deeds of 1997 and 2008 stood confirmed by a civil court's decree. Therefore, it is contended that the criminal proceeding against the petitioners in connection with G.R. Case No.923 of 2010 pending in the file of the learned court below corresponding to Nayakote P.S. Case No.27 of 2010 should be quashed in exercise of the Court's inherent jurisdiction.
5. Mr. Praharaj, learned counsel for the State submits that the petitioners have been chargesheeted for the alleged offences after having evidence collected during investigation and it cannot therefore be said that the impugned order under Annexure-2 is not sustainable in law. The allegation against the petitioners is that petitioner No.2 impersonated herself as the recorded owner and in connivance with petitioner No.1 husband managed to get the sale deed of 2008 executed and hence, according to Mr.Praharaj, when both of them have been chargesheeted, it would not be justified to accept the defence and terminate the criminal proceeding at the threshold.
6. Mr. Acharya, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the fraud so alleged by the informant has been disbelieved by the civil court in C.S. No.120 of 2008 accepting the genuineness of the alleged transactions and ownership in respect of the properties held by petitioner No.1. A copy of the judgment in C.S. No.120 of 2008 is produced by Mr. Acharya along with the order of the learned Senior Civil Judge, Keonjhar dated 31st July, 2018 in C.S. No.168 of 2010, whereby, the plaint was rejected. By heavily relying upon th