BIJAY KUMAR SAHOO Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners in the above criminal misc. case have filed this application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of the order dated 26.12.2008 taking cognizance of the offences and consequent issuance of process passed by the learned S.D.J.M., Bhubaneswar in I.C.C. No. 4482 of 2008. The petitioner No.1, who claims to be a Chartered Accountant, is the Chairman and Director of J.S.S. (I.T.) Solutions Private Limited, which is a company accredited with 9001 : 2000 ISO. The petitioner No. 3 is the Executive Director and the petitioner No. 2 is a Senior Executive of the said company.

(2.) Undisputed facts in this case are that IDCO allotted Ac. 1.940 decimals of land to M/s. J.S.S. (I.T.) Solutions Pvt. Ltd. On 11.4.2008 and possession in respect of Ac. 1.620 decimals was handedover to the said company in Revenue Plot No. 44 under Khata No. 612 in Revenue mouza, Chandrasekharpur which corresponds to IDCO Plot No. F/103. The opposite party No.2-complainant along with twenty others filed C.S. No. 425 of 2006 in the Court of learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Bhubaneswar against IDCO and State of Orissa praying for declaration of their occupancy right over Plot No.44 under Khata No. 612 in mouza Chandrasekharpur. I.A. No. 299 of 2006 was filed in the said suit under Order 39, Rules 1 and 2, C.P.C. for an order of restraint against IDCO and the State of Orissa, which was rejected vide order dated 4.1.2007 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Bhubaneswar. Against the said order, the opposite party No.2 along with others preferred F.A.O. No. 120 of 2007 before this Court which was dismissed on 29.7.2008 and this Court found possession of the suit land in favour of the State and IDCO. Since M/s. J.S.S. (I. T.) Solutions Private Limited got the land by way of lease from IDCO and was put into possession, it can be safely inferred that the possession of the company was held in affirmative so far as the suit land is concerned. Before disposal of the F.A.O., the opposite party No.2 along with others had filed W.P. (C) No. 7816 of 2008 which was disposed of by this Court on 30.5.2008 with a direction that the parties shall maintain status quo regarding possession and construction over the suit land till disposal of the F.A.O. No. 120 of 2007. The said order passed in W.P.(C) No.7816 of 2008 was challenged by the petitioners in Writ Appeal No. 90 6f 2008 wherein vide order dated 11.6.2008, this Court directed that the possession of the petitioners in respect of the land in question shall not be disturbed. Subsequently, the Writ Appeal was allowed and the impugned order passed by this Court in W.P.(C) No.7816 of 2008 was quashed. The petitioners filed C.S. No. 1134 of 2008 before the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Bhubaneswar alleging that the opposite party No.1 along with his henchmen created disturbance in the peaceful possession 1 of the petitioners wherein the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Bhubaneswar by an ex parte order injected the opposite party No. 2 and others from interfering with the possession of the petitioners. Vide order dated 3.12.2008, the order of injunction was converted to an order of status quo and while doing so, the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Bhubaneswar found possession in favour of the State Government and the petitioners. It was further held that the petitioners would suffer irreparable loss as they have already invested huge amount of money for setting up the I. T. Unit. Though the possession was found in favour of the petitioners, but as the order of injunction was converted to that of a status quo, the petitioners preferred F.A.O. No.97 of 2008 before the learned District Judge, Khurda, who dismissed the same, but there was no finding rendered by the District Judge in regard to possession. In the meanwhile, the opposite party No.2 and others preferred a Civil Review against the judgment of this Court in F.A.O. No. 120 of 2007 and the said review petition i.e. RVWPET No.142 of 2008 was dismissed as withdrawn for which the finding of possession of this Court in favour of the predecessors of the petitioners stood confirmed. Alleging that the opposite party No.2 and his henchmen created disturbance in the possession of the petitioners, the company lodged an F.I.R. against Trilokya Rout, Nrusingha Rout, Sambhu Rout, Sudarsana Rout and others (Annexure-2) and accordingly, a case was registered implicating them for commission of offences under Sections 147/148/294/323/427/149 I.P.C. The F.I.R. was lodged on 14.10.2008. Since the opposite party No.2 and his henchmen created lawlessness, the Commissioner-cum-Secretary to Government vide D.O. No.3503 dated 20th October, 2008 requested the Commissioner of Police, Bhubaneswar to initiate special measures to curb the illegal activities caused by the Rout family. A request was also made to provide adequate protection to the petitioner No.1 and the J.S.S. Group, a home growth company. The Managing Director, IDCO vide D.O. No. 19765 dated 21st October, 2008 requested the Police Commissioner, Bhubaneswar to take coercive measures against the miscreants (Rout family) so as to curb the disturbing activities in the area (Annexure-3 series). At the instance of petitioner Nos. 1 and 3, a proceeding under Section 144 Cr.P.C. was initiated and vide order dated 1.11.2008, the learned Addl. D.C.P.-cum-Executive Magistrate, Bhubaneswar directed the opposite party No.2 and his henchmen not to change the nature and character of the suit land. The said order was later confirmed.

(3.) As the matter stood thus, the opposite party No.2 filed a complaint case being I.C.C. No. 4482 of 2008 against the petitioners before the learned S.D.J.M., Bhubaneswar. In the said complaint petition, the opposite party No. 2 ventured with great deal of audacity to mention the following :