Cognizance of offences under IPC sections requires clear allegations and evidence supporting constituent elements; mere threats or accusations without adequate proof do not suffice for criminal proceedings.

ORDER :

G. SATAPATHY, J.

1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual /Physical Mode).

2. This is an application under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. by the petitioners seeking to quash the impugned order passed on 05.12.2015 by the learned S.D.J.M., Bhubaneswar in 1.C.C. Case No.2142 of 2015 taking cognizance of offence under Sections 294 /341/506/406 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short the “ IPC ”) and consequently, the criminal proceeding arising thereon.

3. At the outset, it needs to be mentioned, “the learned S.D.J.M., Bhubaneswar by the impugned order has declined to proceed against co-accused Deepak Mishra and Abhaya Routray, the IIC and ASI of Sahidnagar PS for want of sanction under Section 197 of Cr.P.C., but issued process against the petitioners by the same order”.

4. An overview of the facts involved in this case are the OP was the complainant and the petitioners were the accused persons in a complaint instituted by complainant in 1.C.C. Case No.2142 of 2015 of the Court of learned S.D.J.M., Bhubaneswar. It is alleged in the complaint that in the year 2008, the Manager of the accused company (A1) contacted the OP for supplying and installing glow sign boards in the traffic posts at a rate per square foot basis and, accordingly, transactions were made during the preceding five years of 2013, but when complainant submitted his bills towards the work for making payments to him, A2(Accused No.2) with an ulterior motive to deprive the complainant from his legitimate due, did not pay the amount and on 21.07.2015, when OP- Complainant visited the office of A1 for the purpose of raising claim towards payment, A2 instead of releasing his payment of Rs.83,692/-, threatened the complainant with dire consequence and, thereafter, A2 to 4 being armed with weapon attacked the complainant with intention to kill him and A2 and A3 scolded him in filthy language by saying “SALA TO TANKA DEBUNU TU AMARA KANA KARIBU JAA KOU POLICE AMARA KANA KARIBA DEKHIBU AAU TU SALA ODIA AMATHU PAISA NABU ETHIKI ASIBU TA JIBANARE MARI DEBU AMA MALIKARA DAMBHA KETE JANIBU”. On this incident, complainant approached the police, but in vain and, thereafter, he instituted the complaint against the petitioners.

On receipt of the complaint, the learned S.D.J.M., Bhubaneswar after recording initial statement of the complainant, took cognizance of offences by the impugned order. Hence, this application by the petitioners under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.

5. In the course of hearing of CRLMC, Mr. S.D. Ray, learned counsel for the petitioners by taking this Court through the provision of issuing summons on cooperate bodies and societies, submits that the learned S.D.J.M., Bhubaneswar has not followed the provision of Section 63 of Cr.P.C. to issue summons on the Secretary, Local Manager and other officers of the Company and, thereby, the very issuance of summons is faulted with. It is further submitted by him that a bare perusal of complaint would not disclose the commission of offences under Section 294 /341/506/406 of IPC and, thereby, the impugned order taking cognizance of offence is otherwise an abuse of process of Court and, consequently, the criminal proceeding being manifestly attended with malafide should be quashed. Learned counsel for the petitioners, accordingly, prays to quash the impugned order taking cognizance and, consequently, the criminal proceeding arising therein.

6. On the other hand, Mr. Pranab Kumar Pasayat, learned counsel appearing for Mr. P.C. Mishra, learned counsel for the OP, submits that they have got no instruction from OP and, thereby, the name o