Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
CHITTARANJAN DASH
Malati Parida – Appellant
Versus
State of Odisha – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. application of guidelines for judicial intervention. (Para 7) |
| 2. court's dismissal of the petition. (Para 8) |
ORDER :
CHITTARANJAN DASH, J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the Parties.
2. By means of this application, the Petitioner seeks to challenge the order of cognizance dated 05.11.2020 passed by the learned SDJM, Panposh, Rourkela in connection with FIR No.71 of 2018 of Chhend PS, Rourkela correspond to GR Case No.1059 of 2018 in ICC Case No.178 of 2018.
3. The background facts of the case are that the Petitioner is the widowed mother of the complainant in 1CC Case No. 178 of 2018, arising out of FIR No. 71 of 2018. Cognizance in the said case has been taken solely against the Petitioner, pursuant to the charge sheet filed by the police in PS Case No. 71 of 2018. The Petitioner, aged about 85 years, is the widow of late Dambarudhar Parida. The couple had four sons and a daughter. The complainant, who is her second son, filed Civil Suit No. 5 of 2018 before the Civil Judge, Rourkela, seeking partition of joint family property. In the said suit, the Petitioner was arrayed as Defendant No. 1 and her other children were made Defendants No. 2 to 5.
According to the complai
A court may dismiss a challenge to cognizance if allegations support a prima facie case, despite defenses raised.
Cognizance cannot be taken on a second complaint based on similar facts after a negative report on the first complaint, as it leads to jurisdictional errors and manifest injustice.
Court established that inherent power under Section 482 should be exercised cautiously, not quashing FIRs unless clear lack of merit is shown.
Cruelty, criminal breach of trust and cheating – Order of Magistrate taking cognizance cannot be faulted only because it was not a reasoned order.
The court held that sufficient prima facie evidence warranted trial against some Petitioners for cruelty and dowry harassment, while quashing proceedings against one Petitioner due to vague allegatio....
The word “cognizance” has not been defined under Cr.P.C. To unveil the legal quandary, a brief survey of 'Cognizance' would illuminate everything, clearing all concepts, therefore, this Court is refe....
Judicial cognizance requires a magistrate to apply their mind to the evidence before proceeding; mechanical processes in cognizance undermine personal liberty.
The court held that an F.I.R. cannot be registered without prior police report under Section 154, and vague allegations do not establish a prima facie case, leading to quashing of the F.I.R.
Judicial proceedings involving allegations of cheating and forgery must undergo comprehensive investigation; prima facie evidence suffices for proceeding, dismissing claims of civil nature.
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
