Saroj Kumar Mohapatra Vs Satyendra Prasad Sinha and another
Bench: SINGLE BENCH
Result Published
Acts Referenced
Judgement Snapshot
Case Number
1422 of 2005
Hon'ble Bench
S.K. Sahoo
Advocates
Pramod Kumar Mishra, U.C. Panda
Final Decision
Allowed
Acts Referred
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, Section 482, Section 197, Section 109, Section 200, Section 202 - Saving of inherent powers of
Judgement Text
Translate:
1. Heard Mr. Pramod Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. U.C. Panda, learned counsel for the opposite party no.1-complainant.
2. The petitioner Saroj Kumar Mohapatra who was the Sub-Inspector of Police, GRPS, Rourkela Railway Station has filed this application under section 482 of Cr.P.C. challenging the impugned order dated 10.12.2003 passed by the learned S.D.J.M., Panposh, Rourkela in 1.C.C. Case No.52 of 2002 in taking cognizance of the offence under section 294 of the Indian Penal Code and issuance of process against him.
3. The prosecution case, as per the complaint petition filed by the complainant-opposite party no.1 is that on 27.12.2001 he was going to Marena in connection with some work carrying cash of Rs.1,80,000/- (rupees one lakh eighty thousand only) and other documents in a briefcase and while he was standing in a queue to book a ticket in the railway booking counter, somebody took away his briefcase. After collecting the ticket, when he searched for the briefcase, it was not found for which he rushed to the GRP Police Station to submit a report regarding theft of his briefcase and verbally reported the matter to the police personnel on duty who asked him to give it in writing and accordingly, the complainant-opposite party no.1 presented the written report before the GRP Police Station regarding theft of cash of Rs.1,80,000/- (rupees one lakh eighty thousand only) and other documents. It is the further case of the complainant that after receipt of the first information report, the petitioner as well as co-accused G.N. Siri who was the Sub- Inspector of Police of GRP, Rourkela Railway Station, misbehaved with him and abused him in filthy language, such as "Sala Magiha Eie Paisa Chori Kari Anithilugibe, Salaku Thunki Debije Bapa Naa Asibani, Sala Kantractor Chodei Hauchhi". It is stated that the complainant felt ashamed due to such abusive words and the accused persons did not allow the complainant to go outside the police station from 27.12.2001 to 31.12.2001 and finally on 31.12.2001, he was produced before the Executive Magistrate, Panposh in a case under section 109 of the Cr.P.C. who released him after execution of P.R. bond. It is stated in the complaint petition that without any reason, the complainant was arrested which caused damage to his reputation. It is further stated in the complaint petition that thereafter, the complainantopposite party no.1 sent messages to different authorities including Superintendent of Police, G.R.P., South-Eastern Railway, Rourkela to look into his grievances but no fruitful result came out.
4. Basing on such complaint petition, 1.C.C. Case No.52 of 2002 was registered. The initial statement of the complainant was recorded under section 200 of Cr.P.C. and thereafter, the complainant examined three witnesses during inquiry under section 202 of Cr.P.C. The learned S.D.J.M., Panposh, Rourkela after going through the complaint petition, initial statement of the complainant as well as the statements of the witnesses recorded under section 202 of Cr.P.C., found prima facie case under section 294 of the Indian Penal Code against the petitioner and observing that protection under section 197 of Cr.P.C. is not available to him in the facts scenario of the case, took cognizance of the offence under section 294 of the Indian Penal Code and issued process against him which is impugned in this case.
5. Mr. Pramod Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner while challenging the impugned order contended that as because the petitioner produced the complainant before the Executive Magistrate, Panposh, he has filed the complaint petition on 19.04.2002 which is more than four months of the alleged occurrence. It is further contended that the complaint case proceeding is attended with malafide and the witnesses examined by the complainant during inquiry under section 202 Cr.P.C. have not supported the case of the complainant and therefore, the order of cognizance is vitiated in the eye of law and the same should be quashed.
6. Mr. U.C. Panda, learned counsel appearing for the complainant-opposite party no.1 placed the certified copy of the initial statement as well as statements of the witnesses recorded under section 202 of Cr.P.C. He also placed the decision of this Court in case of Abani Ch. Biswal -Vrs.- State of Orissa reported in Vol. 64 (1987) Cuttack Law Times 659, wherein it has been held that there must be a reasonable connection between the act and the discharge of official duty and the act must bear such relation to the duty that the accused could lay a reasonable but not a pretended or fanciful claim that he did it in the course of performance of the duty. It is further held that every case has to be decided on the facts of its own and judging the accusation made against the petitioner that he had hurled abusive language at the complainant while he was already in the police lock-up, the action cannot by any stretch of imagination, be said to have been committed in course of the discharge of official duty as it had no connection whatsoever therewith, much less, reasonable.
7. Learned counsel for the complainant-opposite party no.1 further placed reliance in case of Manohar Nath Kaul - Vrs.- State of Jammu and Kashmir reported in AIR 1983 Supreme Court 610, wherein it was held that when the offence committed by the public servant is not connected with discharge of official duty, the sanction for prosecution is not necessary.
8. In the present case, the materials available on record indicate that though in the complaint petition, the abusive words used have been mentioned in a detailed manner but in the initial statement, the complainant has stated he was abused by the petitioner in filthy language such as "Sala Maghia, Contractor Chodouchhu". Most peculiarly, none of the three witnesses examined by the opposite party no.1-complainant has whispered anything regarding hurling of any abusive words by the petitioner against the complainant. Therefore, there is no consistency between the types of abusive words hurled at the complainant allegedly by the petitioner. In the complaint petition, it is mentioned that the petitioner and the co-accused abused him but in the initial statement, the complainant has alleged only against the petitioner which gets no corroboration from the statements of the witnesses examined by the complainant during inquiry under section 202 Cr.P.C. The complaint petition has been filed more than four months of the alleged occurrence and that to after the opposite party no.1 was forwarded to Court by the petitioner in connection with Criminal Misc. Case No.961 of 2002 under section 109 of Cr.P.C. and he was released after execution of P.R. bond. In view of the available materials, I am of the view that there are no clinching materials against the petitioner for prosecuting him for the offence under section 294 of the Indian Penal Code.
9. Accordingly, I am inclined to invoke my inherent power under section 482 of Cr.P.C. and quash the impugned order dated 10.12.2003 passed by the S.D.J.M., Panposh in I.C.C. Case No. 52 of 2002 in taking cognizance of offence under section 294 of the Indian Penal Code.
10. In the result, the CRLMC application is allowed.
