AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Chittaranjan Dash, J.
By meanns of this application, the Petitionners, Namita Mohapatra and Namita Dash, have approached this Court under Section 482 of thhe Code of Criminal Procedure seeking to quash the order of cognizzance dated 22.12.2022 passed by the learned S.D.J.M., Bhubaneswar, in CT Case No. 6777 of 2022, arising out of Saheed Nagarr P.S. Case No. 523 of 2022, wherebyy cognizance has been taaken for the offences under Sections 341/294/509/3555/506/34 of the Indian Penal Code against the Petitioners.
The backkground facts of the case, are that the Petitioners are residents of Brahhmeswarapatna under Saheed Nagar Poolice Station, Bhubaneswar. Thhe prosecution case arises out of an FIIR lodged on 08.11.2022 by the informant, Smt. Madhumita Rout, who is employed as a Swachhakarmi at the dumping yard, MCC Durgapurpatna under the Bhubaneswar Municipal Corpporation. It is alleged that on 05.11.2022 at about 10.30 P.M., while the Informant was performing her official duty, one Malay Mohapaatra allegedly confronted her over not wearing the prescribed uniformm, abused her in filthy languagge, and spat on her face in the pressence of co-workers. Upon being advised by Badagada P.S. for want of jurisdiction, the informant subsequently lodged the FIIR at Saheed Nagar P.S. Furrther, on 07.11.2022 at around 111 A.M., the Petitioners alongg with others allegedly visited the worksite and threatened the workers for having reported against thee co-accused, recorded videos, and issued threats to remove them from service. Pursuant to inveestigation, the police submitted charge sheet on 17.12.2022 under Sections 341, 294, 509, 355, 506, and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, and the learned S.D.J.M., Bhubaaneswar took cognizance of the said offences by order dated 22.12.2022. Aggrieved thereby, the Petitioners have approachedd this Court seeking quashmment of the said cognizance order and the consequential criminal proceeding in CT Case No. 67777 of 2022.
Mr. R.K. Mallick, learned counsel for the Petitioners, submits that the allegations in the FIR are vague and unsupported by any specific material to attract the ingredients of the offences under Sections 341, 294, 509, 355, 506, and 34 IPC. It is contended that the Petitioneers were falsely implicated due to priior animosity and the charge sheet was submitted without proper investigation. The 161 Cr.P.C. statements do not disclose any overt act on the part of the Petitionerrs, and cognizance has been taken mechanically without application of judicial mind. Therefore, it is prayed that the entire proceedingg be quashed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to prevent abuse of process.
Mr., learrned Additional Standing Counsel foor the State, opposes the prayer for quashing and submits that there are sufficient materials in the case diary to proceed against the Petitioners. The FIR and the statements under Section 161 Cr.P.C. reveal that the Petitioners accompanied the main accused during the second incident and threeatened the informant and other workkers, thereby attracting the offfences alleged. It is argued that at the stage of cognizance, onlyy a prima facie case is required, and the learned Magistrate rightlly took cognizance based on the charge sheet and supporting mateerials. Thus, the application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. deserves dismissal.
Upon a careful perusal of the FIR dated 08.11.2022 and the materials on recoord, particularly the statement of the innformant and the charge sheet,, it appears that the alleged incidents relate to two distinct dates i.e. 05.11.2022 and 07.11.2022. The first incident, dated 05.11.2022, involves one Malay Mohapatra allegedly abusing and spitting on thhe informant while she was on duty. Thhe Petitioners were not present during this occurrence, a fact not dissputed by the prosecution. The second incident, dated 07.11.2022, is alleged to have occurred when the Petitioners, along with otherss, visited the dumping yard and purportedly threatened the informant and her co-workers. The FIR records that during the second incident, the accused persons “cautioned all workers” and issued threats in relation to reporting against Malay Mohapatra.
Significanntly, the FIR expressly names Namitaa Mohapatra, linking her directtly to the second incident. It alleges that she, along with others, incluuding security guards, threatened the workers, and is therefore squarely implicated in the alleged act of criminal intimidation. In contrast, Namita Dash’s name does not find any mention in the narrative portion of the FIR or in the initial complaint lodgedd by the informant. Her presence at the scene of occurrence is neither described nor independently established in any of the 161 Cr.P.C. statements examined. The inclusion of her name appears to be ommnibus in nature, lacking any specific allegation or overt act attributed to her. Such vague and generalised accusations, in the absence of supporting material, do not satisfy the threshold for sustaining criminal prosecution.
The Hon’ble Apex Court in its decision in the matter of State of Haryanna vs. Bhajanlal reported in 1992 Supp(1) SCC 335, has laid down the following guidelines for exercise of power under Section 482:-
“(1) Wherre the allegations made in the first information report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie consstitute any offence or make out a case against the accuseed.
(2) Wheree the allegations in the first information report and other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not discllose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Section 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purvieew of Section 155(2) of the Code.
(3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or coomplaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence annd make out a case against the accused.
(4) Wheree, the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognnizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplatedd under Section 1555(2) of the Code.
(5) Wheree the allegations made in the FIR or commplaint are so abssurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which noo prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused.
(6) Wheree there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerneed Act (under whhich a criminal proceeding is instituted)) to the institutionn and continuance of the proceedings and/or where theere is a specific provision in the Code or the concernedd Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party.
(7) Wheree a criminal proceeding is manifestly atttended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge.”
In view of the above, this Court finds it pertinennt to reiterate that while the poower under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is to be exercised sparingly, it mayy nonetheless be invoked to prevent abuse of the process of courrt where the allegations are patently absurd or manifestly attendd to implicate a person without any foundational basis. As regardss Petitioner No.2, Namita Dash, the case squarely falls within such parameters, as there is no specific reference to her in the FIR, nor is any overt act attributed to her. In contrast, Petitioner No.1, Namita Mohapatra, has been named in the FIR and the allegation of issuing threats is directed at her. The plea taken on her behalf regardding the lack of specific ingredients constituting the alleged offences, though not entirely without merit,, pertains to factual aspects that would require appreciation of evvidence. It is well settled that such pleas, which touch upon the sufficiency of evidence or probable defence, are not within thhe scope of interference undder Section 482 Cr.P.C. at the pree-trial stage. Accordingly, thee Court finds no ground to quash thee cognizance order in so far as Petitioner No.1 is concerned.
As a resuult, this Court is of the considered opinion that no prima facie case is made out against Petitioner No.2, Namita Dash, and the continuation of the criminal proceeding against her would amount to an abuuse of the process of law.
Accordingly, the CRLMC is allowed in part. The order taking cognizance dated 22.12.2022 passed by the learnned S.D.J.M., Bhubaneswar in CT Case No. 6777 of 2022 is hereby quashed insofar as it relates to Petitioner No.2.
However, as regards Petitioner No.1, Namita Mohapatra, this Court finds no justification to interfere at this stagge. It is open to her to raise all permissible legal and factual pleas at the appropriate stage, including the stage of framing of charge or seeking discharge, in accordance with law.
The CRLMC is hence disposed of.
.……………………………………