RAVI P REDDY Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This CRLMC arises out of a petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of the F.I.R. vide Golanthara P. S. case No. 101 dated 4-8-2005 giving rise to G. R. case No. 1150 of 2005 pending on the file of the S. D. J. M. Berhampur.

(2.) As depicted in the F.I.R. informant and his wife are founding members and doners of S. M. Charitable Educational Trust, which promotes the Engineering College, after the name National Institute of Science and Technology (hereinafter referred as 'NIST') established at Palur Hills under Golanthara Police Station, Berhampur. He is also Chairman of the Governing Body of NIST and S.M. Charitable Educational Trust. Mr. Sangam Muduli is the Director of NIST. With prior notice to Mr. Sangram Muduli, for discussion on important matter relating to NIST, he visited it at 10 a.m. on 3rd August 2005 to find Mr. Muduli absent there. The informant was made to understand that the accused-petitioner, one of the faculty members of NIST was in charge of the Director, Mr. Muduli. When he asked him to open the conference hall where he (informant) used to sit on his visit to NIST, he physically restrained him, used abusive language and threatened to his life. So, on 4-8- 2005 at 3.30 p.m he lodged a written report before the O.I.C. of Golanthara P. S. who treated it as F.I.R. and registered P. S. Case No. 101 of 2005 under Sections 294/341/506 of I.P.C. The accused-petitioner has sought for quashing the said F.I.R, as stated earlier.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that as per the F.I.R., informant is the Chairman of the Governing Body of NIST and S. M. Charitable Educational Trust. But, in fact he does not hold either of the offices. So, the contents of the F.I.R are outright false. The accused/petitioner is a distinguished-academician having the qualification of B. Tech in I.I.T. Khadapur with M. S. and Ph.D. degree from the University of Houston, U.S.A. It appears inherently improbable that he committed the offence as alleged. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that even if the allegations made in the F.I.R. are believed to be true, still then, the same cannot prima facie make out a case for the offence under Sections 294/341/506 of I.P.C., particularly when the informant has no right to enter the Conference Hall. As such the F.I.R deserves to be quashed. To prove that the informant is neither the Chairman of the Governing Body of NIST nor that of the S. M. Charitable Educational Trust he relied upon Annexure-3 and the intervention petition filed by the informant before this Court.