AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Dr. A.K.Mishra, J
In this case under Section 482 Cr.P.C. prayer is made to quash the cognizance order dated 6.01.2015 passed in 1(C) C.C. Case No. 262 of 2014
pending in the court of learned S.D.J.M., Dhenkanal.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for opposite party No.2 and learned Addl. Standing Counsel for the State.
The order under Annexure-3 dated 6.01.2015 reveals that cognizance has been taken under Sections 467/ 468/ 474/ 419/ 420/ 406/294/34 of the
I.P.C. and the learned S.D.J.M., Dhenkanal found sufficient ground to proceed against eight accused persons in the complaint case. It is stated that
the present petitioner is accused No.3 as per the complaint, who is the brother of the complainant.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
as the accused persons being brother and sister of the complainant has not given his due share in the joint family property and attempted to take away
the compensation for land acquisition for which a suit was pending, the continuance of the proceeding would be an abuse of the process of the Court.
Learned counsel for the complainant (O.P. No.2) submits that the signature of the complainant in the documents were forged to collect the
compensation amount by the accused persons and they had committed overt act on 20.08.2014 for which the prima facie material is available and the
cognizance order does not warrant any interference.
I carefully perused the complaint petition and copy of the judgment in the Civil Suit No. 287 of 2003. Fact remains that out of eight accused persons
only one accused petitioner has preferred this proceeding under Sec. 482 Cr.P.C. In complainant petition it has been specifically mentioned in
Paragraphs-E & F that the signature of the complainant was forged and overt act was committed on 20.08.2014.
In the decision reported in (2019) 10 Supreme Court Cases 337: XYZ vrs. State of Gujarat and Another, the Hon’ble Apex Court has stated that
the High Court should not make a roving inquiry while considering the application filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
The contention which learned counsel for the petitioner is taking is a defence plea, which can be taken during the trial and not at the time of
consideration under Section 482 Cr.P.C. No meticulous analysis of the material is permissible at this stage also. In the decision reported in 2019 74
OCR (SC) 131 in the case of Sau Kamal Shivji Pokarnekar vrs. The State of Maharashtra, it is held as follows:-
“6. Defences that may be available, or facts/aspects which when established during the trial, may lead to acquittal, are not grounds for quashing the
complaint at the threshold. At that stage, the only question relevant is whether the averments in the complaint spell out the ingredients of a criminal
offence or not.â€
The F.I.R./Complaint having disclosed prima facie offence alleged, the principles enumerated in the decision reported in AIR 1992 SC 604: State of
Haryana and Ors. vrs. Ch. Bhajan Lal and others, to quash the proceeding are not attracted.
In that view of the matter, I am not inclined to invoke the jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the cognizance order dated 6.01.2015
passed in 1(C) C.C. Case No. 262 of 2014 pending in the court of learned S.D.J.M., Dhenkanal.
Accordingly, the CRLMC stands dismissed.