The Court determined that a detailed inquiry under Section 202 Cr.P.C is essential before taking cognizance in allegations of fraud and forgery, highlighting the importance of judicial diligence and thorough investigation.

JUDGMENT :

R.K. PATTANAIK, J.

1. Instant petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C is at the behest of the petitioner challenging the correctness, legality and judicial propriety of the impugned order of cognizance dated 8^th February, 2021 passed in 1.C.C. No. 3733 of 2020 by the learned S.D.J.M., Bhubaneswar on the grounds inter alia that the same is not tenable in law and hence, liable to be interfered with and quashed in exercise of the Court’s inherent jurisdiction.

2. In fact, opposite party Nos. 2 and 3 filed the complaint in 1.C.C. No. 3733 of 2020 against the petitioner, wherein, the learned Court below recorded the initial statement of opposite party No.3 under Section 200 Cr.P.C and received evidence during inquiry in terms of Section- 202 Cr.P.C. and at last, passed the impugned order dated 8^th February, 2021 vide Annexure-3. It has been alleged by the petitioner that the learned Court below ought not to have taken cognizance of the alleged offences without proper inquiry when the dispute between the parties is related to the functioning of a society of the flat owners of Nanda Enclave and morefully, when he instituted a suit in C.S. No. 1430 of 2020 pending before the Court of learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Bhubaneswar as against which complaint is filed as a counterblast.

3. Heard Mr. Dhal, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioner assisted by Mr. A. Ray, Advocate and Mr. Satapathy, learned counsel for opposite party Nos. 2 and 3.

4. Opposite party Nos.2 and 3 have filed complaint in 1.C.C. Case No. 3733 of 2020 against the petitioner with the allegation that the signatures of one of them and two others, who are arrayed as the witnesses to the complaint, were forged in the Memorandum dated 8^th April, 2018 of the Nanda Enclave Flat Owners Association. It has also been alleged that petitioner collected money from opposite party Nos. 2 and 3 and other flat owners towards development of the society, however, an amount of Rs.8,40,000/-(Rupees Eight Lac Forty Thousand) was misappropriated. The complainant also alleged that a fake bank account was opened by the petitioner in the name of Nanda Enclave Flat Owners’ Association, he being the authorized signatory to carry on bank transactions on behalf of the Association, which was not in existence and was revealed in course of inquiry. With the above allegations, the complaint was filed by opposite party Nos.2 and 3, whereupon, the learned Court below after receiving evidence proceeded to take cognizance of the offences under Sections 420 , 465, 323, 468, 471 and 506 of I.P.C. against the petitioner vide Annexure-3, which is currently under challenge.

5. Mr. Dhal, learned Senior Advocate for the petitioner submits that opposite party Nos. 2 and 3, who is a flat owner of the Nanda Enclave filed the complaint by making false allegations therein with an ulterior motive to arm twist of the petitioner, who filed a suit in C.S. No. 1430 of 2020. It is contended that after the said suit was instituted by the petitioner, as a counterblast, the complaint was filed by opposite party Nos. 2 and 3 in order to wreck vengeance and settle the score. Mr. Dhal, refers to the decision of the Apex Court in State of Haryana and others Vrs. Ch. Bhajan Lal and others reported in 1992 SCC (Cri) 426 and submits that neither the complaint disclosed any such offences to have been committed by the petitioner or a prima facie case is made out and not only that, the criminal proceeding is being initiated by opposite party Nos. 2 and 3 being thrust upon the former which is manifestly with a view to spite him due to private and personal g