Sarbeswar Pattnaik vs Swarnalata Sarangi

S.Pujahari  Â

The order dated 04.09.2003 passed by the learned S.D.J.M., Udala in I.C.C. Case No.36 of 2003 taking cognizance of the offences under Sections

120-B and 506(ii) of I.P.C. is sought to be quashed by the petitioner, by invoking the power of this Court under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. Notice on the opposite party could not be served as she has gone untraced as reported.

A perusal of the papers on record would reveal that as on the relevant date, i.e., 24.04.2003 the petitioner was working as the Officer-in-charge of

Udala Police Station, and on that date the opposite party had lodged a report (FIR) at the said Police Station to the effect that one Iswar Chandra

Tudu and his supporters had entered into the petrol pump premises of the opposite party, threatened her with life and committed some other overt

acts. It would further reveal that the opposite party was in possession of the petrol pump (Filling Station) and doing business therein on the strength of

a deed of power of attorney executed by the above named Iswar Chandra Tudu (owner), and that subsequently, there arose some dispute between

them, for which there was a proceeding under Section 144 of Cr.P.C. at the instance of the opposite party before the Executive Magistrate. It is

alleged that the present petitioner in misuse of his official position sided with Iswar Chandra Tudu and failed to discharge his duty vis-Ã -vis the

proceeding initiated under Section 144 of Cr.P.C. as well as the F.I.R. lodged by the opposite party for the alleged incident dated 24.04.2003. The

opposite party filed a complaint registered as I.C.C. No.36 of 2003 before the learned S.D.J.M., Udala who vide his order dated 04.09.2003 took

cognizance of offence under Sections 120-B/506(ii) of IPC against the present petitioner and issued process against him. The said order is under

challenge.

It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that even if the facts as stated by the opposite party in her complaint are assumed to be

true, then also no case of any criminal offence can be said to have been prima-facie made out against the petitioner. It is further submitted that the

learned S.D.J.M. remained oblivious of the fact that the F.I.R. lodged by the opposite party against Iswar Chandra Tudu on 24.04.2003 had been

registered by the petitioner on the same date under Sections 448/506(ii)/427 of IPC vide P.S. Case No.44 of 2003 and one Sub-Inspector of the Police

Station had been entrusted with investigation. The learned counsel would further submit that the petitioner was to act according to law, and not as per

the desire of the Informant-opposite party, and even assuming that there was any laxity on his part, no criminality could have been attributed to him.

The learned counsel has submitted that the learned S.D.J.M. failed to apply his judicial mind to the fact situation and also ignored the provision of

Section 197 of Cr.P.C.

As revealed from the papers on record, the petrol pump which formed subject-matter of dispute between the opposite party and Iswar Chandra

Tudu, was left in possession of the opposite party on the purported strength of a deed of power of attorney executed by the Proprietor â€" Iswar

Chandra Tudu, and subsequently, the said deed was cancelled by a registered instrument. The Proprietor claimed back the business premises for

which the dispute or disturbance arose. Be that as it may, the main plank of allegation of the complainant against the present petitioner was that he

sided with the proprietor â€" Tudu and did not take proper legal action pursuant to the F.I.R. / allegation made by her against Tudu. But, as already

stated, the F.I.R. lodged by the complainant against Tudu, his father etc. was duly registered by the petitioner on the same date setting the criminal

law into motion. Even assuming for a while that the petitioner was either not prompt in action on her F.I.R. or the opposite party was in need of any

urgent or efficacious relief for the cause of action, she could have taken appropriate recourse of law.

From the materials on record, there appears hardly a case of any criminal offence against the petitioner â€" police officer. This Court is unable to

sustain the view of the learned S.D.J.M. that there is a prima-facie case under Sections 120-B/506(ii) of IPC against the petitioner. The impugned

order, therefore, being found to be illegal and improper, needs to be quashed.

The CRLMC stands allowed. The impugned order stands quashed.

As the restrictions due to resurgence of COVID-19 situation are continuing, learned counsel for the parties may utilize a printout of the order available

in the High Court’s website, at par with certified copy, subject to attestation by the concerned advocate, in the manner prescribed vide Court’s

Notice No.4587, dated 25th March, 2020 as modified by Court’s Notice No.4798, dated 15th April, 2021.

……………………….