ULLASH CH. SAMANTRAY Vs. STATE OF ODISHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By means of this application, the Petitioner seeks to quash the criminal proceeding in connection with 1CC No.315 of 2016 pending before the learned S.D.J.M., Bhubaneswar initiated at the instance of the Opposite Party No.2.

(2.) The backkground facts of the case are that the mother of the Opposite Party No.2, namely Pramila Paikray, the sister of the present Petitioner filed a Civil Suit No.825 of 2006 in the court of learned Civil Judge, (Sr. Division), Bhubaneswar against the Petitioner prayinng for decree of partition of the suuit properties allotting 1/4th share in her favour. In the said suit, the mother of the Opposite Party No.2 described the Petitioner as thee son of the Raghunath Samaantray and nor Lokanath Samntaray. Finally, the aforesaid suit waas decreed on the basis of the compro mise filed by the Parties, wherein it was admitted that the Petitioner is the son of Lokanath Samntrray and not Raghunath Samantray. Havving satisfied with the decree passed by the learned court on the basis of the compromise, the mother of the Opposite Party No.2 na mely Pramila Paikray got the properties fell in her share mutated in her name. Subsequently, shhe sold away the said properties in faavour of one Gangadhar Sahoo of Baramunda, Bhubaneswar in thhe district of khurda. It is alleged by the Petitioner that while filing the suit, the said Pramila Paikaray intentionally described the Petittioner as son of Raghunath Saamantray instead of Lokanathi Samanntray but the Petitioner consistently asserted him to be the son of saaid Lokanath Samantray. After about 3 years of the said final decree, the said Pramila Paikray filed CMA No. 35/11 before the learned Civil Court U/s 151 CPC, inter alia, praying to set aside the compromise decree on the ground that the same has been obtained by committing fraudd. The petitioner contested the said prroceeding by submitting his objection. Despite the objection, the learned Trial Court accepted the case of the Petitioner for consideration whereupon the Petitioner preferred Criminal Revission Petition before this Honhle Court in CRP No.3/12. This Court by order dtd. 3/2/2012 stayed the further proceeding in the aforesaid CMA No. 35/2011. When the matter stood thus, in the year 2015, the said Pramila Paikray filed another CMC No.636 of 2015 under Sec. 144 (2) Cr.P.C against the Petitioner and some others, inter, alia, seeking for order under the said provision of law not to raise any construction over the scheduled-A land of the said Petition. When an interimm order was passed in the said proceeding, the Petitioner challenged the aforesaid order in CRLREVV No.457 of 2015 before this Court. During pendency of the aforessaid Criminal Revision, the Adddl. DCP-cum-Executive Magistrate, Bhubaneswar vide order dateed 28/7/2015 was pleased to droop the said proceeding, interr alia, mentioning therein that the disppute are civil in nature. It is furrther alleged by the Petitioner that in thhe meantime, Pramila Paikray filed so many cases before the learneed civil court including the saidd CMA No.35 of 2011 but the CMA No.35 of 2011 got stayed by this Court. In the meanwhile, on thee basis of a complaint case filed by the son of Pramila Paikray, inter alia allegeing that the Petitioner is the son of Late Raghunatth Samantray but claimed to be the adopted son of Lokanath Samanntray and has sold certain propperties and further that the Petitioner managed to obtain a comproomise decree in the civil suit against his mother namely Pramila Paikray. His mother Pramila Paikray, being an old lady did not know the implication of putting signature on court paper and her siggnature in the alleged compromise deccree and now she has been suuffering and claiming himself to be the son of Lokonath Samnaatray, the Petitioner sold some properties in the name of Hrusikeh Samantray, S/o. Raghunath Samantray. It is further alleged that the Petitioner sold certain propeerties to one Swarnalata Mohaanty as Ullash Samantray, S/o. Lokantth Samantray and subsequently cancelled the same through a deed of cancellation. In the above ciircumstances, the Petitioner has approached this Court seeking to challenge the initiation of the criminaal proceeding instituted at the behest of the son of Pramila Paikray annd has prayed for quashing of thhe same.

(3.) Mr. Lenkka, learned counsel for the Petitioner, submitted that the entire set of allegations in the complaint arises ouut of a long-standing propertyy dispute between the parties, which iss purely civil in character, and that the criminal court ought not to entertain matters that esssentially pertain to civil rights overr immovable property. He conntended that right from the institutionn of the civil suit, Opposite Paarty No.2, namely Pramila Paikray, the elder sister of the Petitioner, with the sole objective of appropriatiing the entire properties of Lokanath Samantray, deliberately disputed the parentage of the Petitioner by describing him as the son of Raghunath Sammantray. Ultimately, however, the matter was amicably settled and a compromise decree was passeed wherein it stood acknowleddged that the Petitioner is the son of Lokanath Samantray. Only after alienating the properties that had fallen to her share pursuant to the compromise decree, Pramila Paikray instituted proceedings challlenging the said compromise decree, despite the fact that it had already been fully acted upon. Learned counsel further argued thhat the complaint case discloses no cause of action whatsoever and that the issues raised therein have already been settled between the parties. The land in question, accorrding to him, does not fall within the common hotchpotch nor was it the subject matter of the commpromise decree. Therefore, even assuuming for the sake of argumentt that the Petitioner has executed certaiin documents describing himseelf as the son of Lokanath Samantray, no criminal liability can be attached to him, as no right in the property of Opposite Party No.2 or her son stands affected thereby. It is his specific submisssion of Mr. Lenka that the core of the dispute revolves around whether the Petitioner is the son of Lokanath Samantray or Raghunath Samantray, which is a matter already settled in multiplle unimpeachable records. He drew atttention to the Record-of-Rightss of the year 1962 pertaining to Ploot No. 37-E, wherein the Petiitioner has been recorded as the son of Lokanath Samantray. Likeewise, the matriculation certificate isssued by the Board of Seconddary Education, an unimpeachable document, also reflects the Petitioner's parentage as the son of Lokanath Samantray. The same description appears consisteently in the Aadhar Card and other official documents issuedd thereafter. Further, in a giift deed executed in the year 1976, Raghunath Samantray himseelf described the Petitioner, Ullash Ch. Samantray, as his nephew, thereby acknowledging that the Petitiooner was not his son. Relying on these materials, Mr. Lenka contendded that there is no manner of doubt that the Petitioner is the son of Late Lokanath Samantray. He therefore submitted that the present criminal proceeding, initiated at the instance of the Petitioner's nephew, is nothing but an attempt to usurp property and to subject the Petitioner to unwarranted harassment, and is liable to bee quashed.