CRLMC No.4651 of 2015

Page 1 of 8

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

CRLMC No.4651 of 2015

Damayanti Mohapatra, Proprietor

M/s Damayanti Rice Mill

….

Petitioner

Mr. Devashis Panda, Advocate

-Versus-

Pitambar Acharya, CSO-cum-

District Manager, OSCS

Corporation Limited, Koraput

….

Opposite Party

Mr. A.K. Mishra, Advocate

CORAM:

JUSTICE R.K. PATTANAIK

DATE OF JUDGMENT:19.04.2023

1. Invoking the inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C,

the petitioner has approached this Court for quashing of the

impugned order of cognizance dated 15^th April, 2015 and the

criminal proceeding in 1.C.C. Case No. 72 of 2015 pending in the

Court of learned S.D.J.M., Jeypore on the grounds inter alia that

the criminal prosecution which has been initiated at the behest of

the opposite party is not tenable in law.

2. The opposite party filed the complaint before the learned

Court below with the allegation that the petitioner, who is the

proprietor of a rice mill M/s. Damayanti Rice Mill entered into an

agreement with them on 21^st February, 2014 to act as custom

miller for the Corporation during the KMS (Rabi Season), 2013-14

and in that connection, paddy was delivered to him with an

amount of Rs.9,00,000/- pledged as security. It is stated therein

that the Sub-Collector-cum-S.D.M., Jeypore raided the petitioner’s

rice mill and detected shortage of paddy on 26^th September, 2014

Damayanti Mohapatra, Proprietor

M/s Damayanti Rice Mill Vrs. Pitambar Acharya, CSO-cum-DM

CRLMC No. 4651 of 2015 Page 2 of 8

and it was alleged that the stocks were removed by the petitioner

and in course of Special Audit, an amount of Rs.1,43,37,854/- was

due for payment and for that, a notice was issued and when such

request was not honoured and obliged, the security cheques

dated 13^th February, 2015 submitted by the petitioner were

presented for collection and encashment, however, all of them

stood dishonoured with an endorsement ‘Account closed’, the

fact which was duly informed to the petitioner with a notice

dated 3^rd March, 2015 but the payment was not made within the

stipulated time, consequent upon which, the complaint in 1.C.C.

Case No. 72 of 2015 was filed.

3. Head Mr. Panda, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.

Mishra, learned counsel for the opposite party.

4. Mr. Panda, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the

complainant did not have any locus standi to represent the

Odisha State Civil Supply Corporation Limited having not been

duly authorized by the Board of Directors under Section 291 of

the Company’s Act, 1956 and therefore, it cannot be entertained.

Furthermore, according to Mr. Panda, no offence under Section

138 of N.I. Act is made out for the reason that the cheques had

been issued as security to the Corporation. Referring to a decision

of M.S. Narayana Menon @ Mani Vrs. State of Kerala reported in

AIR 2006 SC 3366, Mr. Panda submits that in view of the ratio

laid down therein, the cheques issued by way of security, as in the

present case, in the event of its dishonour cannot fall within the

mischief of Section 138 of N.I. Act and hence, the complaint

against the petitioner cannot lie and therefore, inherent

jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is required to be exercised

to quash it. Some other grounds have been raised and pleaded for

by the petitioner, however, Mr. Panda, learned counsel for the

petitioner confined his argument principally on the ground that

Damayanti Mohapatra, Proprietor

M/s Damayanti Rice Mill Vrs. Pitambar Acharya, CSO-cum-DM

CRLMC No. 4651 of 2015 Page 3 of 8

no offence under Section 138 of the N.I. Act is made out since the

cheques were in the hands of the opposite party as securi