NAMITA MOHAPATRA Vs. STATE OF ODISHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By meanns of this application, the Petitionners, Namita Mohapatra and Namita Dash, have approached this Court under Sec. 482 of thhe Code of Criminal Procedure seeking to quash the order of cognizzance dtd. 22/12/2022 passed by the learned S.D.J.M., Bhubaneswar, in CT Case No. 6777 of 2022, arising out of Saheed Nagarr P.S. Case No. 523 of 2022, wherebyy cognizance has been taaken for the offences under Ss. 341/294/509/3555/506/34 of the Indian Penal Code against the Petitioners.

(2.) The backkground facts of the case, are that the Petitioners are residents of Brahhmeswarapatna under Saheed Nagar Poolice Station, Bhubaneswar. Thhe prosecution case arises out of an FIIR lodged on 8/11/2022 by the informant, Smt. Madhumita Rout, who is employed as a Swachhakarmi at the dumping yard, MCC Durgapurpatna under the Bhubaneswar Municipal Corpporation. It is alleged that on 5/11/2022 at about 10.30 P.M., while the Informant was performing her official duty, one Malay Mohapaatra allegedly confronted her over not wearing the prescribed uniformm, abused her in filthy languagge, and spat on her face in the pressence of co-workers. Upon being advised by Badagada P.S. for want of jurisdiction, the informant subsequently lodged the FIIR at Saheed Nagar P.S. Furrther, on 7/11/2022 at around 111 A.M., the Petitioners alongg with others allegedly visited the worksite and threatened the workers for having reported against thee co-accused, recorded videos, and issued threats to remove them from service. Pursuant to inveestigation, the police submitted charge sheet on 17/12/2022 under Ss. 341, 294, 509, 355, 506, and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, and the learned S.D.J.M., Bhubaaneswar took cognizance of the said offences by order dtd. 22/12/2022. Aggrieved thereby, the Petitioners have approachedd this Court seeking quashmment of the said cognizance order and the consequential criminal proceeding in CT Case No. 67777 of 2022.

(3.) Mr. R.K. Mallick, learned counsel for the Petitioners, submits that the allegations in the FIR are vague and unsupported by any specific material to attract the ingredients of the offences under Ss. 341, 294, 509, 355, 506, and 34 IPC. It is contended that the Petitioneers were falsely implicated due to priior animosity and the charge sheet was submitted without proper investigation. The 161 Cr.P.C. statements do not disclose any overt act on the part of the Petitionerrs, and cognizance has been taken mechanically without application of judicial mind. Therefore, it is prayed that the entire proceedingg be quashed under Sec. 482 Cr.P.C. to prevent abuse of process.