BIJAY KUMAR BISWAL Vs. STATE OF ODISHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By meanns of this application, the Petitioneer seeks the indulgence of this Court praying to quash the order of cognizance dtd. 9/6/20166 passed by the learned S.D.J.M., Koraput in 1CC Case No.02 of 20016, wherein, the Petitioner has been implicated in the offence underr Ss. 143/448/149 of IPC.

(2.) The backkground facts of the case are that on 14/9/2011, the complainant, Bijaya Laxmi Sahu, lodged a report at Sunabeda Police Station alleging that two years earlier, in the abbsence of her husband Baikunthanath Sahu, several individualls including Dandapani Swain and the present Petitioner, Bijay Kuumar Biswal, unlawfully entereed their house at night by breaking the lock. It was alleged that Swain, accompanied by his son-in-law (thhe Petitioner) and others, continnued to occupy the house despite the complainant's objections. The genesis of the dispute, however, lies inn a monetary transaction betwween Baikunthanath Sahu and Dandaapani Swain. Sahu had defaullted on instalments for a Housing Board quarter (MIG-1) allottedd to him, resulting in its cancellation in 2002. Nonetheless, in 2008, to meet his brother's medical expenses, Baikunthanath accepted Rs.92,000.00 from Swain aggainst a total consideration of Rs.1,40,000.00 and handed over possession of the quarter without disclosing the cancellation status. Thhe agreement was notarized, annd the Petitioner, as a witness and rellative, signed the receipt. Swaain later occupied the house, spent money on its repair through the Petitioner, and conducted a hoousewarming ceremony. Yearss later, when property values rose, Baikunthanath allegedly demandded more money, which Swain refused, prompting the Sahu family to initiate police complaints, which weere treated as civil disputes. The matter resurfaced through a private complaint leading to the cognizance order. This petition has therefore been preferred to quaash the said order, asserting that the dispute is essentially civil in nature and that the criminal proceeddings amount to an abuse of thee process of law.

(3.) Mr. Bhokta, learned counsel for the Petitioner submitted that the entire caase stems from a property dispute between private parties, and the allegations made in the complaint, even if accepted in their entirety, do not disclose the commission of any criminal offence by the Peetitioner. It was contended that the Petiitioner, being the son-in-law of one of the accused and a local conntractor, was merely a witness to a notarised transaction between the complainant's huusband and Dandapani Swain and haad no role in any alleged trespass or intimidation. Mr. Bhokta asserts that the dispute revolves around possession and consideration relating to a Housing Board quarter, which had already been canccelled due to default in payment. Counsel further pointed out that thee police, after thorough investigation, submitted a Final Report cateegorising the matter as a 'Misstake of Law' due to lack of material and witness support. He submmits that despite this, the complainant filed a private complaint after an unexplained delay of four years,, which was entertained withoout due regard to the earlier findings. Mr. Bhokta finally submits that the complaint is nothing but a civvil grievance being given a criiminal colour, and the continuation of proceedings against the Petittioner amounts to abuse of the process of law, warranting interference under Sec. 482 Cr.P.C.