MURLIDHAR SATPATHY Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant Murlidhar Satpathy, has filed the present writ appeal against an order dated 23-11-2006 passed by a learned single Judge of this Court in Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 371 of 2006, partly allowing the same by quashing cognizance under Section 138, N. I. Act, but declining to quash a criminal proceeding against the appellant under Section 420/34, I. P. C., which is now pending in the Court of the learned S. D. J. M., Bhubaneswar (arising out of G. R. Case No. 3507 of 2004).

(2.) The Writ Petition (Cri.) No. 371 of 2006 was disposed of by the learned single Judge of this Court vide Order dated 23-11-2006, inter alia, with the following observations :

(3.) Sri G. Rath, Sr. Advocate, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that, while exercising its jurisdiction under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India as well as under Section 482, Cr. P. C. for quashing a criminal proceeding, the learned single Judge, has failed to apply the proposition of law formulated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Haryana and others v. Ch. Bhajan Lal and others, AIR 1992 SC 604 and has not considered, whether the allegations made in the F. I. R. and the evidence collected by the police are so absurd that no reasonable person can ever reach a conclusion that there is s ufficient ground to proceed against the accused. He further submitted that in the present case, the principles evolved in Ch. Bhajan Lal's case (supra) should have been applied. He further submitted that the learned single Judge failed to appreciate the true scope of the judgment rendered in the case of Haridaya Ranjan Pd. Verma and others v. State of Bihar and another, AIR 2000 SC 2341 : (2000 Cri LJ 2983), inasmuch as, since the ingredients of Section 420/34, I.P.C. have nejther been expressly stated nor indirectly suggested in the F. I. R., so as to constitute an offence of cheating by the appellant, the criminal proceeding against the appellant ought to be quashed.