SUSHANTA MOHAPATRA Vs. STATE OF ODISHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By means of this application, the Petitioners seek to quash the order dtd. 8/1/2021 passed by the learned SDJM, Berhampur, Berhampur in 1CC Case No.286 of 2020 arising out of 1CC Case No.388 of 2019 corresponding to GR Case No.1779 of 2019 wherein the learned court took cognizance of the offence under Ss. 417/420/34 of the IPC implicating them.

(2.) The background facts of the case are that the Informant-Opposite Party No.2, namely Pravash Chandra Mohanty, lodged a written report before Baidyanathpur Police Station, Berhampur, which was registered as Baidyanathpur P.S. Case No.264 of 2019 under Sec. 294/341/325/500/354/417/420/506/34 of the IPC. Upon registration of the said FIR, investigation was taken up by the police. However, the investigating agency, having found no substance in the allegations, submitted the Final Report attributing the accusations to be based on mistake of fact.

(3.) Ms. P. Naidu, learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner, inter alia, argued that it is a settled position of law that where the averments, even if taken at their face value, do not constitute a criminal offence, the criminal proceedings are liable to be quashed. She further submitted that the initiation of the present criminal proceeding amounts to an abuse of the process of law, particularly where the dispute is purely of a civil nature and/or where a civil dispute is sought to be given the colour of a criminal one. Referring to the various allegations made in the protest petition, Ms. Naidu submitted that the entire gamut of allegations pertains to a dispute between the brothers regarding the sale and purchase of land, as well as the expenditure incurred towards the registration of land under RSD No.1154 of 2002. She, therefore, contended that the non-refund of money would, in no manner, give rise to a criminal action, and that the Informant-Opposite Party No.2 is at liberty to recover the said amount through appropriate civil proceedings. There is, according to her, neither any element of cheating nor any deception made out from the allegations of the Informant-Opposite Party No.2.