Manoranjan Parida and Another vs Kalandi Charan Dutta

P.K. Mohanty, J.—The Petitioners assail the order dated 21.1.1997 of the learned J.M.F.C., Jajpur Road in I.C.C. No. 4 of 1997 taking cognizance of offences under Sections 323, 294, 427/34, Indian Penal Code and in issuing process as against the Petitioners.

The brief fact of the Petitioners'' case is that Petitioner No. 1 was the Officer-in Charge of Tamaka P.S. and Petitioner No. 2 is the Asst. Sub-Inspector of Police of Tamaka P.S. in the district of Jajpur. One Pradip Kumar Chand lodged an FIR before the opp. party No. 1 at Tamaka P.S. on 16.1.1997 at about 5 p.m. alleging therein that while the informant Joint Secretary, Youth Congress of Jajpur district was returning from his house by a Car via Chitri Purunasahi on 15.1.1997 at 7.30 P.M. saw the Car bearing No. OR 02A-3262 belonging to M.L.A Sukinda Constituency was standing in front of the house of Kalandi Dutta obstructing the road. The informant got down from the Car and requested the driver of the Car to park in a side giving way to other vehicles, at this Sri Prafulla Chandra Ghadei, M.L.A. instructed Kalandi Dutta and other persons to commit murder of the informant. Suddenly, Kalandi Dutta and about 10 persons armed with deadly weapons assaulted the informant causing bleeding injuries on his head and other parts of the body. On the basis of such information, Tamaka P.S. Case No. 5 of 1997 was registered against the M.L.A. Sri Ghadei, Kalandi Dutta and other persons for having committed offences punishable under Sections 341, 323, 324, 325, 307, 294, 337, 506/34, Indian Penal Code. Petitioner No. 1 investigated the case being supervised by the Deputy Superintendent of Police. Kalandi Dutta was a candidate for the membership of Panchayat Samiti in Chitri Grama Panchayat from Janata Dal. Panchayat election was scheduled to be held on 16.1.1997 and the occurrence took place in the night of 15.1.1997. It is alleged that Sri Ghadei and Dutta persuaded the Petitioner No. 1 to delete their names from the case. But the Petitioner having expressed his inability to curve the investigation, the false case has been foisted against the Petitioner by way of a complaint petition.

The allegation in the complaint I.C.C. No. 4 of 1997 against the Petitioners is that on 15.1.1997 at about 8.00 P.M., while the accused Kalandi Dutta was discussing with his supporters in his house, the Petitioners came along with others being armed with deadly weapons and by breaking open the front gate, the Petitioner No. 1 scolded him in obscene language. When the Petitioner No. 1 was about to assault on the head of the complainant, his wife came in rescue, but Petitioner No. 1 assaulted at her leg by means of a roll stick. Other accused persons assaulted the complainant and damaged the Car of Sri Ghadei. The initial statement of the complainant was recorded and the statements of other three witnesses were recorded during enquiry under Section 202, Code of Criminal Procedure by the learned Magistrate. It is alleged that even though false allegations are made and the accused persons are police officers protected under Section 197, Code of Criminal Procedure still the learned Magistrate took cognizance of the offences punishable under Sections 323, 294, 427/34, Indian Penal Code.

The complainant in his initial statement recorded by the learned Magistrate, has deposed on solemn affirmation that the occurrence took place at 8.00 P.M. on 15.1.1997 inside his house when he was giving instructions to his polling agents, he being a candidate for election to Panchayat. The accused-petitioner along with some others came in a Car, six motor-cycles and two treckers and abused him in obscene language. The accused Officer-In-Charge was holding Lathi and Ors. were armed with Bhujali and Sword. They, the accused persons, threatened him to suffer consequences for having gone against the police officers and when the complainant approached the Officer-In-Charge, he did not protect in saying that he has instituted the complaint case against him. Both the Officer-in-charge and the A.S.I., dragged him from Varendah and gave lathi blows on his head-neck when his wife came and saved him, she was given a blow and she fell down when Sri Parida gave two lathi blows on her leg.

The accused persons fled away leaving their scooter and motor-cycle, whereafter, the complainant met the Circle Inspector, Superintendent of Police and informed Deputy Inspector General of Police in writing. He has further stated that he had enmity with accused persons other than police staff. Witness No. 2 on behalf of the complainant in his statement under Section 202, Code of Criminal Procedure more or less corroborated the statement of the complainant to the extent of accused persons coming to the spot of occurrence being armed. But he has further stated that accused Manoranjan Parida (meaning O.I.C. of Tamaka P.S.) assaulted the complainant by police stick saying in vulgar language "you are after police etc." The wife of the complainant while corroborating the complainant''s case to some extent, however, has stated that "Accused Manoranjan Parida dragged my husband and gave lathi blows on his head and told him as to why he is filing cases against them."

It appears from the order-sheet of the Magistrate''s record that on 29.1.1997, the learned J.M.F.C. recorded the initial statement of the complainant and in view of the statement that he (the complainant) had reported the matter to Superintendent of Police, Circle Inspector and Dy. Inspector General, he called for a report from the O.I.C. Tamaka P.S. under Section 210(1), Code of Criminal Procedure It appears from the order dated 21.3.1997 that the learned Magistrate received the police report as called for, which revealed apart from another incident, on 15.1.1997 Tamaka P.S. Case No. 5 dated 17.1.1997 under Sections 341, 313, 324, 325, 307, 294, 337, 506/34, Indian Penal Code has been registered against the complainant Kalandi Dutta and Ors. on the basis of report of one Prafulla Kumar Chand and that the complaint has been filed to direct investigation of the P.S. Case. The learned Magistrate after recording initial statement and subsequently the statements of witnesses under Section 202, Code of Criminal Procedure has taken cognizance by order dated 22.8.1997 under Sections 323/294/427/34, Indian Penal Code and issued process against the Petitioners, which is impugned in this petition.

It appears from records that the P.S. Case No. 5 dated 17.1.1997 against the complainant and some others was registered on the basis of the First Information Report lodged by one Prabir Kumar Chand and the date of occurrence was 7.30 P.M. of 15.1.1997. The complaint petition has been filed on 21.1.1997 before the learned Magistrate registered as I.C.C No. 4 of 1997. The alleged date of occurrence is 15.1.1997 at 8 P.M. The complainant in his initial statement on solemn affirmation has clearly stated that he has no enmity with the accused Petitioners, meaning at best till the date of statement, i.e. 21.1.1997. Allegedly, the complainant lodged complaint if any before the Inspector-In-Charge, Superintendent of Police and the Dy. Inspector General of Police after the accused Petitioners along with others decamped from the complainant''s house after the incident at 8.00 P.M. of 15.1.1997. But interestingly and curiously, the complainant, his wife Sabita Manjari and Kodandadhar Samal, in their statements recorded under Sections 202 Code of Criminal Procedure have stated that the present accused Police Officers along with 15 to 20 others came and threatened, assaulted the complainant and his wife for having gone against the accused-Police Officials. If the statement of the complainant is accepted as true and truthful, then he had no enmity with the accused Petitioners inasmuch as he had obviously not lodged the complaint against them before either the Circle Inspector, Superintendent of Police or the Deputy Inspector General of Police and therefore, there remains no occasion for them to threaten that way. The story of threat and assault as per the complainant, it is to be accepted, then on 15.1.1997 at 8.00 P.M. the complainant had not lodged complaint before the higher Police Officers, for which the Petitioners might have been aggrieved. No earlier complaint or protest against the accused-petitioner is also alleged and thus there cannot be any manner of doubt that the complaint is prima facie false and or inherently improbable and on the basis of such a complaint, the continuance of the criminal proceeding would be an abuse of process of law and, as such, in the interest of justice, should be closed.

Law is well settled that ordinarily the High Court should not interfere in an order of cognizance taken by a competent Magistrate unless the complaint or the FIR and the statements of the witnesses taken on their face value do not disclose or constitute an offence or that the facts alleged are frivolous or inherently improbable. In Punjab National Bank and others Vs. Surendra Prasad Sinha, , the Apex Court observed that the judicial process should not be an instrument of oppression or needless harassment. The Court should be circumspect and judicious in exercising discretion and should take all the relevant facts and circumstances into consideration before issuing process lest it would be an instrument in the hands of private complainant as vendetta to harass the persons needlessly.

In Dhanalakshmi Vs. R. Prasanna Kumar and Others, , it is laid down that Section 482, Code of Criminal Procedure empowers the High Court to exercise its inherent powers to prevent abuse of the process of Court. In proceedings instituted on complaint exercise of the inherent power to quash the proceedings is called for only in cases where the complaint does not disclose any offence or is frivolous, vexatious or oppressive. The High Court, however, will not enter into meticulous analysis of the case before the trial to find out whether the case would end in conviction or not. The complaint has to be read as a whole. If it appears on the consideration of the allegations, in the light of the statement on oath of the complainant that ingredients of the offence/offences are disclosed and there is no material to show that the complaint is mala fide, frivolous or vexatious, in that event there would be no justification for interference by the High Court. It is equally well-settled position of law that the Court should also take into consideration any special feature which appears in a particular case to consider whether it is expedient and in the interest of justice to permit a prosecution to continue. This is so, because the Court cannot be utilised for an oblique purpose and where, in the opinion of the Court, chances of an ultimate conviction are bleak and, therefore, no useful purpose is likely to be served by allowing a criminal proceeding to continue, the Court may while taking into consideration the special facts of a case also quash the proceeding even if it may be at a preliminary stage.

A reading of the complaint petition along with the statements of witnesses recorded under Section 202, Code of Criminal Procedure by the learned Magistrate clearly discloses the complaint to be inherently improbable, the statements are contradictory and the allegations are fictitious, may be with a view to harass the Petitioners. There is absolutely no allegation nor even a whisper as to why the police officers had to take the help of the so-called hoodlums to attack and give only one or two blows in his roller-stick. The complainant had made it clear in his statement that he had no enmity with the police officer and therefore, there was no occasion for these police officers to come with hoodlums to attack the complainant in his house allegedly on the ground that the complainant had gone against the police officers when, as a matter of fact, the complainant allegedly reported this incident only before the higher police officers. The complaint story on the face of it appears inherently improbable and fictitious. On the basis of such inherently improbable and fictitious story, continuance of the criminal prosecution cannot be allowed, since it would be an abuse of the process of the Court. Accordingly, I quash the Criminal Proceeding and the petition is allowed.

Petition is allowed.