SATYA PRIYA JAYASINGH Vs. STATE OF ODISHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard leaarned counsels for both the parties.

(2.) By means of this application the Petitioner seeks to quash the FIR under Annexure-1 in connection with EOWW P.S. Case No.02 of 2023 pending before the learned S.D.J.M., Bhubaneswar in C.T. Case No.42 of 2023.

(3.) The backkground facts of the case are that one Ajay Kumar Agarwal lodged a report alleging that the Petitioner namely Satya Priya Jayasingh, the Managing Partner of M/s. Maa Chandeswari Granites agreed to transfer the lease of a granite stone mine quarry at village Dimiritadi, in Tahasil Dasapalla over the plot bearing No.12 pertainingg to Khata No.22 for an area of 13.60 Acres. Although it is stated that the Petitioner executed ann irrevocable general power of attorney dtd. 20/11/2017 in favour of the Opposite Party No.2-Informant for raising, operating and running the mines, it is alleged that he being induced by the prromise of the Petitioner by trannsfer the lease, the Opposite Party No.2-Informant paid consideratioon of Rs.1,45,00,000.00 apart from Rs.20,00,000.00paid subsequentlly against the residuary amount of Rs.30,00,000.00paid towards procurement of goods. According to the Petitioner, the aforesaid allegatiions are vexatious, concocted and ex faacie false and has been made so with the sole intention to coerce the Petitioner to transfer the mininng lease in his favour pursuant to the Odisha Minor Minerals Amenddment Act, 2022 vide Gazette Notifiication dtd. 31/3/2022 whicch allows transfer of leases. Accorrding to the Petitioner, the coonsideration amount alleged to have beeen paid was received from onne M/s. Walter Vanijya (P) Ltd. for sale of stones from the said quaarry. The Opposite Party No.2/ Informant by virtue of the irrevocable of power of attorney continue to operate the quarry without any hindrance. Thus, on a bare perusal of the allegations madee in the report, there appears no primma facie case made out againsst the Petitioner for commission of the offences under Sec. 420/406/467/468/471/506/34 of IPC. It iss further case of the Petitioner that the criminal case thus motivated by vengeance to settle his score against the Petitioner, who refuses to transfer and/or initiate the process to transfer the lease in his favour. Furthermore, it is the case of the Petitioner that so far as the monetary aspectt is concerned, the nature of dispute is purely contractual and the Opposite Party No.2-Informant has all means to initiate a money claim for recovery, hence, the FIR iss liable to be quashed.