Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
CRLMC No.4141 of 2022
(In the matter of an application under Section 482 of the Criminal
Procedure Code, 1973)
Vineet Chhatwal ……. Petitioner
-Versus-
State of Orissa and another ……. Opposite Parties
For the Petitioner : Mr. Ajit Kumar Singh, Advocate
For the Opp. Parties : Mr. B.K. Ragada,
Additional Government Advocate
Mr. Samir Kumar Mishra, Senior Advocate
(for O.P.2)
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE SHRI JUSTICE SIBO SANKAR MISHRA
Date of Hearing: 25.04.2024 :: Date of Judgment: 16.07.2024
S.S. Mishra, J.
1.
By invoking the inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section
482 Cr.P.C., the petitioner in the present petition is seeking quashing of
the order dated 13.09.2022 passed by the learned S.D.J.M.,
Page 2 of 23
Paralakhemundi in 1.C.C. Case No.17 of 2022, whereby the learned
Court below has taken cognizance of offences under Sections
408/465/468/469/471/201 of I.P.C. read with Sections 66(C)/66(D)/72 of
the I.T. Act against him on the complaint/protest petition filed by
opposite party No.2.
2.
The prime contention of the petitioner in attacking the cognizance
order as mentioned above and the consequential proceeding arising
therefrom are that on the selfsame allegations, an F.I.R. has already been
registered at Jatni Police Station being Jatni P.S. Case No.0017 of 2021.
After investigation, charge-sheet has already been filed in that case,
wherein the present petitioner has been cited as a witness. On the
selfsame allegations, another F.I.R. has been registered on 14.04.2021 at
Gurandi Police Station being Gurandi P.S. Case No.0024 of 2021 only to
harass the petitioner. The police investigated into the alleged offences in
the second F.I.R. and filed a closure report inter alia stating that <there is
already a case been filed in Jatni police station and parallel
investigation of multiple cases on the same cause of action is not
maintainable in the eye of law.=
Page 3 of 23
After the closure report was filed by the Investigating Agency,
the opposite party No.2 being dissatisfied filed a protest petition and led
evidence under Section 200 Cr.P.C. The learned Trial Court has taken
cognizance of the offences in the said protest petition vide the impugned
order. Therefore, the petitioner contends that the F.I.R. has already been
registered and investigated by the Jatni Police, wherein the petitioner has
been arrayed as a witness and on the selfsame allegation and alleged
transactions the protest petition has been filed implicating the petitioner
as accused despite the police filed a closer report after thorough
investigation. The intention of the opposite party No.2 to file second
F.I.R. in a remote place is only with a motivated design to harass the
petitioner.
3.
Substratum of allegation in the protest petition reads as under:-
<On 19th Dec 2020 it came to light that Mr. Himanshu Kabi
had done a misappropriation of money amounting to Rs.87
lakhs. Citing this, Prof. D. N. Rao, sent a mail on 20th
December, 2020 instructing Mr. Vineet Chhatwal to seek
explanation from Mr. Himanshu Kabi on this matter, and in
the reply mail dated 19th Dec 2020, Mr. Kabi had accepted
the same. On 20th Dec 2020 Prof. D.N Rao instructed Mr.
Vineet Chhatwal, through mail, to immediately suspend the
CFO for which Mr. Vineet Chhatwal replied as done. The
official mail ID of TFO was also immediately suspended on
Page 4 of 23
20th Dec 2020 by the System Administrator of the
university. However, it was later found by the Vice
President, on the contrary that Mr. Vineet Chhatwal had
neither suspended the CFO nor had he taken any action
against him. Mr. Vineet Chhatwal had also again instructed
the System Administrator to restore the ID and give it back
to the CFO. This mail ID was with Mr. Kabi till 30th Dec
2020. In the meantime Mr. Vineet Chhatwal also entrusted
Mr. Kabi with the task of working on GST settlement. This
gave Mr. Kabi enough time to take out/delete all important
data from his official mail ID. Mr. Kabi also took certain
steps to settle GST matter which led the university to fall
into a bribery trap case which brought down the image and
the goodwill of the university. All these days Mr. Kabi was
reporting to Mr. Vineet Chhatwal. This attracts 212 IPC
which points at harbouring the offender, which Mr. Vineet
Chhatwal has done in this case. Prime facie of this case
shows by not acting as the instruction of the Vice President-
cum-Trustee of the University, Mr. Vineet Chhatwal had
committed criminal breach of trust which attracts 405 IPC.
Mr. Vineet Chhatwal has done grave misconducts of not
responding to the directions of the authorities, and had done
disobedience and insubordination, negligence or failure to
perform duty and being a party to allow misappropriation of
funds and helping the culprits to escape.
Further, Mr. Kabi was terminated from his services and was
asked to handover the office laptop and the data related to
university to the newly appointed Comptroller of Finance
(in-charge), Mr. Debasis Panda. He sent a mall refusing to
do so. Hence, the data and the laptop is still with him. An
FIR has already been filed against Mr. Kabi under Jatni PS,
DR.No.-159 dated 08.01.2021 (FIR No. 0017).
While all this while Mr. Vineet was assuring the founder
trustees that he is taking action against the CFO, Mr. Kabi,
he kept on engaging with him, giving him access to official
records and actively aided him in destroying crucial
evidence. Mr. Vineet, however was not present and
proceeded to Dubai on 24th December, 2020. This calls for
vicarious liability on the part of Mr. Vineet.
Page 5 of 23
Further, Mr. Chhatwal had been the CEO till 11 Feb 2021.
In the meantime, in the GST bribery case he was called
upon by CBI for investigation. The Trustees of the
university had asked him return back from to office just
after the CBI Investigation started on the GST bribery case
in early January 2021. He had shown his inability to come
to the university as he had taken Covid 19 vaccination till
end of Jan 2021. It was later noticed that he has given
statements to CBI on 9th Feb 2021 & IIC Jatni on 10th Feb
2021 in connection with the university without any
consultation of & documents of the university. He has
shown scant respect for the due processes of the University
and reneged on his own commitment to return to the
University after returning from Dubai to settle all
outstanding issues. Further, Mr. Chhatwal was terminated
via e-mall dated 12th Feb 2021 and was asked to handover
the charge and details. But, though he was heading the
administration as CEO, Mr. Vineet replied that he had not
got any data or files or details to handover to the university.
It has also come to the notice of the University that the
accused persons Mr. Vineet and Mr. Kabi colluded to
defame the university by recording false evidence and going
on TV on 14th Feb, 2021. Mr. Kabi used the data collected
by him (which was allowed by the CEO Mr. Chhatwal)
during the course of his duties, for this purpose. This
amounts to breach of trust as well as theft of data which will
attract punishment under Section 66 of the IT Act, 2000.=
4.
To substantiate the allegations made in the protest petition, the
opposite party No.2 examined three witnesses. The complainant himself
filed a detailed affidavit by way of evidence dated 20.07.2022 and
exhibited the said affidavit by appearing and deposing before the Court.
Similarly, one Mr. Nrusingha Das was also examined as witness No.2. He
Page 6 of 23
too filed evidence by way of affidavit dated 16.08.2022 and exhibited the
same in the Court on 07.09.2022. Similarly, Mr. Suri Venkata Ramana
was also examined as witness No.3. He had filed an affidavit by way of
evidence on 16.08.2022 and appeared before the Court on 07.09.2022 to
affirm and exhibit the affidavit. Apart from the detailed narration of the
sequence of events and the allegations against the petitioner, these
witnesses appearing in the Court had made specific allegation against the
petitioner, outline of which inter alia reads as under:-
<1. I know the complainant of this case Durga Prasad Padhi. I
know the accused person Vineeth Chatwal.
2. The Board Member of Centurion University appointed the
accused as Chief Executive Officer (CEO) for raising
investments, strengthen admissions, finance, placement and
other administrative development in the month of May, 2019.
He joined in the month of August, 2019. After his
appointment he himself appointed one Himanshu Kabi as
Chief Finance Officer, CFO and his appointment they both
were dealing with all the administrative work including the
finances of the University. I also directed to report CEO for
every financial matter of the university. Thereafter, CEO and
CFO made several financial transaction of the university
during Covid Period. In December, 2020 the University
found out that CFO was doing misappropriate of the funds of
the university and accordingly a direction was issued to the
CEO for suspension of mail ID of CFO as well as of his
removal. But instead of that the CEO not only activate the
mail of CFO but also help the CFO for committing further
misappropriation of the funds as well as for sharing the data
with other investors. When another notice was issued to CEO
Page 7 of 23
with regard to supplying of data in reply he submits that he
got no data with him and delete all the datas. For the
misappropriation of the funds as well as for sharing the
confidential data a case has been registered against CFO at
Jatni PS also with the ground for return back the official
laptop. One case was also registered by the complainant in
this regard before Paralakhemundi PS against CEO and
CFO.=
All the witnesses besides the complainant have broadly made
same statements before the summoning court in the enquiry under
section 202 Cr.P.C.
5.
The learned S.D.J.M., Paralakhemundi by taking into consideration
the allegations made in the protest petition and the depositions of three
witnesses including the informant in their pre-summoning evidences has
taken cognizance of the alleged offences against the petitioner. Therefore,
the petitioner is aggrieved by the said cognizance order and challenged
the same in this petition.
6.
Heard Mr. Ajit Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner,
Mr. B. K. Ragada, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State
and Mr. Samir Kumar Mishra, learned Senior Counsel for the opposite
party No.2.
Page 8 of 23
7.
Mr. Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in the
present case, on the same set of incidents and also connected with the
same set of transactions, two FIRs have been registered. In the first F.I.R.
dated 08.01.2021 registered at Jatni Police Station on the written report of
Chitta Ranjan Pattnaik, Sr. Manager, HR & Admin, Centurion University,
the petitioner has been cited as a witness. In the second F.I.R. dated
14.04.2021 registered at Gurandi Police Station on the written report of
Dr. Durga Prasad Padhi, Deputy Registrar, Centurion University after
thorough investigation, closure report was filed. However, the opposite
party No.2 filed a criminal complaint under Section 200 Cr.P.C. as a
protest petition against the police report before the learned S.D.J.M.,
Paralakhemundi reiterating same allegations as was made in the earlier
two F.I.Rs relating to the same set of incidents and transactions. The
learned S.D.J.M., Paralakhemundi ignored the closure report, which
expressly stated that there is already a case filed in Jatni Police Station
and parallel investigation of multiple cases on the same cause of action is
not maintainable in the eye of law. The learned Court below ought not to
have ignored this material evidence already collected and placed on
Page 9 of 23
record in the charge sheet of the first F.I.R. Further, the learned Court
below should not have ignored the law applicable thereto i.e. there cannot
be a second F.I.R. on the same set of incidents/transactions or connected
set of incidents/transactions.
8.
To substantiate the aforementioned submission, Mr. Singh, learned
counsel for the petitioner relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble
Supreme Court in the case of Pepsi Foods Ltd. and another vrs. Special
Judicial Magistrate and others reported in (1998) 5 SCC 749. He has
also relied upon another judgment in the case of Mehmood U1-Rehman
vrs. Khazir Mohammad Tunda and other reported in 2015 (12) SCC
420.
In Pepsi Foods (supra), it is held that summoning of an accused in
a criminal case is a serious matter. Criminal law cannot be set into motion
as a matter of course. It is not that the complainant has to bring only two
witnesses to support his allegations in the complaint to have the criminal
law set into motion. The order of the Magistrate summoning the accused
must reflect that he has applied his mind to the facts of the case and the
law applicable thereto. He has to examine the nature of allegations made
Page 10 of 23
in the complaint and the evidence both oral and documentary in support
thereof and would that be sufficient for the complainant to succeed to
bring home the charge. It is not that the Magistrate is a silent spectator at
the time of recording of preliminary evidence before summoning of the
accused. The Magistrate has to carefully scrutinize the evidence brought
on record and may even himself put questions to the complainant and his
witnesses to elicit answers to find out the truthfulness of the allegations or
otherwise and then examine if any offence is prima facie committed by
all or any of the accused.
9.
The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Mehmood (supra) has
held that the Magistrate needs to apply judicial mind, while issuing
summon to call on to an accused for facing criminal trial. It has held that
in other words, the Magistrate is not to act as a post office in taking
cognizance of each and every complaint filed before him and issue
process as a matter of routine. There must be sufficient indication in the
order passed by the Magistrate that he is satisfied that the allegations in
the complaint constitute an offence and when considered along with the
statements recorded and the result of inquiry or report of investigation
Page 11 of 23
under Section 202 Cr.P.C., if any, the accused is answerable before the
criminal court, there is ground for proceeding against the accused under
Section 204 Cr.P.C., by issuing process for appearance. The application
of mind is best demonstrated by disclosure of mind on satisfaction. If
there is no such indication in a case where the Magistrate proceeds under
Sections 190/204 Cr.P.C., the High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is
bound to invoke its plannery power so as to prevent abuse of the process
of law. To be called to appear before the criminal court as an accused is a
serious matter affecting one’s dignity, self-respect and image in society.
Hence, the process of criminal court shall not be made as a weapon of
harassment.
10.
Mr. Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner highlighted the nature
of the complaint filed before the Magistrate under Section 200 Cr.P.C., in
form of a protest petition. Essentially the complaint/protest petition
reflects the complainant’s dissatisfaction with the police investigation.
However, it is surprising that the learned Magistrate completely
overlooked the fact that in the second F.I.R. No.0024 dated 14.04.2021 at
Gurundi Police Station, there are two accused, with the petitioner
Page 12 of 23
allegedly aiding and assisting A-2, (Himanshu Shekhar Kabi), in the
diversion of funds through forgery of the document etc. Strikingly, in
the protest petition, only the names of the petitioner as an accused found
mentioned, this discrepancy that not only deviates from the original
police complaint but also poses a logical challenge as to how the offence
could have been committed solely by the petitioner in absence of
Himanshu Shekhar Kabi. This oversight demonstrates a clear non-
application of mind by the cognizance taking Court.
11.
Mr. Singh, further relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble
Supreme Court in the case of Tarak Dash Mukharjee and others vrs.
State of Uttar Pradesh and others reported in 2022 SCC OnLine SC
2021 and submitted that facts of this case matches with the facts of the
cited judgment. Paragraphs-11, 12 & 13 of the said judgment have been
cited, which reads as under:-
<11. We have perused both the FIRs. The respondent
no.4 is the first informant in both the FIRs and the
same are based on the same agreement for sale
executed on 14th June 2006. The allegation made in
both the FIRs is the same. The allegation is that by
practising forgery and fraud, the appellant no.1 has
sold the subject property to appellant no.2 thereby
deceiving the respondent no.4. The second FIR, which
Page 13 of 23
is the subject matter of challenge, was registered
nearly four years after the first FIR was registered.
The challenge to the first FIR is pending before the
High Court. These aspects have been completely
overlooked by the High Court in the impugned
judgment.
12.If multiple First Information Reports by the same person against the same accused are permitted to be registered in respect of the same set of facts and allegations, it will result in the accused getting entangled in multiple criminal proceedings for the same alleged offence. Therefore, the registration of such multiple FIRs is nothing but abuse of the process of law. Moreover, the act of the registration of such successive FIRs on the same set of facts and allegations at the instance of the same informant will not stand the scrutiny of Articles 21 and 22 of the Constitution of India. The settled legal position on this behalf has been completely ignored by the High Court.
13.Accordingly, the appeal must succeed. The FIR No.0177 of 2019 registered at Bhelupur Police Station in District Varanasi, charge-sheet dated 12th July 2019 on the basis of the said FIR and the summoning order dated 12th July 2019 passed by the Court of ACJM, Varanasi in Criminal Case No.480 of 2019 are thereby quashed and set aside. No order as to costs.=
In essence, the contention of Mr. Singh is that this Court inheres the power to interdict the proceeding at the threshold stage on the broad principle that the proceeding is instituted being the manifestation of malafide attempt with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the petitioner. Prima facie triable offence is not disclosed which would warrant subjecting the petitioner to suffer the agony of often protracted legal proceeding. A prosecution which is bound to become lame or a sham ought to be interdicted in the interest of justice lest the continuance thereof will amount to an abuse of process of law.
12.Per Contra, Mr. S.K. Mishra, learned Senior Counsel for the opposite party No.2 has argued that if the submission of the petitioner is taken into consideration at this stage, this Court has to conduct some sort of mini trial to ascertain the fact as to whether the transaction related to the earlier F.I.R. registered in Jatni P.S. has anything to do with the transaction alleged in the present case or not. He further submitted that the judgment cited by Mr. Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner has no bearing on the facts of the present case, because in both the F.I.Rs. the act complaint of are pertaining to distinct transactions.
13.Mr. Ragada, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State by concurring with the submission made by Mr. Mishra, learned Senior Counsel for opposite party No.2 submits that the cognizance taking Court needs to be satisfied as to whether prima facie case is made out on the basis of material available on record. In the instant case, since the complaint/protest petition contains specific allegation against the petitioner and the said allegations are being reiterated in the evidence of the witnesses, the Court below had no other option rather to take cognizance of offences. Probative value of that evidence borne on record in the enquiry under section 202 Cr.P.C could only be tested in the trial.
14.I have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and have also perused the material available on record. The judgments cited by the petitioner are also being analyzed vis-à-vis the facts of the present case.
15.Mr. Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner to begin with cited couple of judgments to persuade this Court to give indulgence in this matter under the inherent juri iction of this Court. There is no quarrel on the legal proposition that the inherent juri iction of the High Court under section 482 Cr.P.C is designed to achieve salutary purpose that criminal proceedings ought not to be permitted to degenerate into the weapon of harassment. If the Court is satisfied that the criminal proceeding amounts to abuse of process of law, it must exercise the inherent power and scuttle the prolonged rigors of trial at the threshold.
16.I agree with Mr. Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner that registration of the second F.I.R. based on the same set of facts and related
to the same series of transaction is nothing but abuse of process of law. However, grains has to be separated from chaff to accept the contention that the transaction/incident indeed are same or germinating from the same series of transaction/incident which has been the subject matter of the first F.I.R. registered at Jatni P.S. Case No.0017 of 2021 needs to be gone into at the appropriate stage. There is a distinction between the same transaction/incident and similar transaction/incident. For the same transaction/incident no doubt second F.I.R. or repeated F.I.R. cannot be registered but for the similar incident/transaction, there could be more than one F.I.R., the Investigating Agency has to investigate the case so as to ascertain as to whether the incidents are similar or same. In the instant case, the Investigating Agency in the second F.I.R. i.e. Gurandi P.S. Case No.0024 of 2021 has although filed a closure report inter alia stating that the transaction/incident is arising out of the same cause of action, however, in the protest petition, the opposite party No.2 has made very specific allegation against the petitioner making out a similar case to that of the first F.I.R. and the said allegations are substantiated through enquiry by Magistrate by recording the statement under Section 202
Cr.P.C. There are overlapping facts which has been pointed out by Mr. Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner. Those ambivalence facts which are complicated and culminated into the registration of the first F.I.R. and subsequently the second F.I.R. needs to be seen in the light of the fact as to whether the allegations are same or similar in nature.
17.It is said that every trial is a voyage of discovery in which truth is the quest. Therefore, the process of trial is inevitable to discover the truth from these complicated, overlapping and ambivalence facts like the present case. The petitioner has questioned the prosecution at the very incipient stage. The learned Court below has taken cognizance of offences on the basis of the averment made in the complaint and the statement of witnesses recorded under Section 202 Cr.P.C. The only test for the cognizance taking court is to see through the record as to whether prima facie case is borne out from the material form part of the record or not. The Trial Court in the instant case has only looked into the allegation made by the opposite party No.2 in the complaint/protest petition and the subsequent statement of the witnesses namely Suri Venkata Ramana, Nrusingha Das and Santosh Kumar Nanda.
18.Perusal of the contents of the complaint and the evidence, no doubt makes out a prima facie case on facts in the first flush against the petitioner for the offences punishable under Sections 408/465/468/469/471/201 of I.P.C. read with Sections 66(C)/66(D)/72 of the I.T. Act. But availability of necessary ingredient from the materials on record to constitute a particular offence or offences needs to be gone into by the Court below at the appropriate stage, however, definitely not at this stage of cognizance. Therefore, no fault could be found in the impugned order and I think the Court below in this case has rightly taken note of the fact that the complainant/opposite party No.2 has successfully made out a prima facie case against the petitioner.
19.The contention of the petitioner through Mr. Singh, that on the selfsame allegation, there was already an F.I.R. registered wherein the petitioner has been arrayed as a witness, therefore, the subsequent F.I.R. is a mala fide action on the part of the opposite party No.2 could only be tested at the appropriate stage by the Trial Court. At the incipient stage of taking of cognizance of offences, the Court is not required to go into all these issues. The contention of Mr. Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner regarding lack of ingredients to substantiate few of the offences cognizance of which has been taken against the petitioner is also an issue to be gone into by the Court below at the stage of framing of charges.
20.The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Samta Naidu & Anr. as under:-
48.Under the Code of Criminal Procedure the subject of "Complaints to Magistrates" is dealt with in Chapter 16 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The provisions relevant for the purpose of this case are Sections 200, 202 and 203. Section 200 deals with examination of complainants and Sections 202, 203 and 204 with the powers of the Magistrate in regard to the dismissal of complaint or the issuing of process. The scope and extent of Sections 202 and 203 were laid down in Vadilal Panchal v. Dattatraya Dulaji Ghadigaonker. The scope of enquiry Under Section 202 is limited to finding out the truth or otherwise of the complaint in order to determine whether process should issue or not and Section 203 lays down what materials are to be considered for the purpose. Under Section 203 Code of Criminal Procedure the judgment which the Magistrate has to form must be based on the statements of the complainant and of his witnesses and the result of the investigation or enquiry if any. He must apply his mind to the materials and form his judgment whether or not there is sufficient ground for proceeding. Therefore if he has not mi irected himself as to the scope of the enquiry made Under Section 202, of the Code of Criminal Procedure, and has judicially applied his mind to the material before him and then proceeds to make his order it cannot be said that he has acted erroneously. An order of dismissal Under Section 203, of the Code of Criminal Procedure, is, however, no bar to the entertainment of a second complaint on the same facts but it will be entertained only in exceptional circumstances, e.g., where the previous order was passed on an incomplete record or on a misunderstanding of the nature of the complaint or it was manifestly absurd, unjust or foolish or where new facts which could not, with reasonable diligence, have been brought on the record in the previous proceedings, have been adduced. It cannot be said to be in the interests of justice that after a decision has been given against the complainant upon a full consideration of his case, he or any other person should be given another opportunity to have his complaint enquired into.=
21.The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Zunaid vrs. State of U.P. & Ors. reported in 2023 Livelaw (SC) 730 while dealing with a matter some what matching the facts of the present case has also held that the Magistrate by arriving at the subjective satisfaction can take cognizance of the offences on the basis of the averments in protest petition and an inquiry under Section 202 Cr.P.C. Paragraphs-11 & 12 of the said judgment is relevant to be reproduced as under:-
11.In view of the above, there remains no shadow of doubt that on the receipt of the police report under Section 173 Cr.P.C., the Magistrate can exercise three options. Firstly, he may decide that there is no sufficient ground for proceeding further and drop action. Secondly, he may take cognizance of the offence under Section 190(1)(b) on the basis of the police report and issue process; and thirdly, he instance of the respondents-accused. It was only when the concerned CJM after recording the statements of the complainant and eight witnesses, issued summons on 11.01.2022, the respondents filed the application challenging the said order dated 11.01.2022 under Section 482 before the High Court, and in the said application, the order dated 15.11.2018 came to be challenged by way of amendment. As such, the High Court should not have permitted the respondents-accused to amend the Application for challenging the order dated 15.11.2018 after about four years of its passing, and in any case should not have interfered with the discretion exercised by the CJM within the four corners of law. The discretionary order of 11.01.2022 passed by the concerned CJM issuing summons to the accused, after recording statements of the complainant and the eight witnesses and after recording
prima facie satisfaction about the commission of the alleged crime, also did not warrant any interference by the High Court. In our opinion, the High Court has committed gross error in setting aside the orders dated 15.11.2018 and 11.01.2022 passed by the CJM.=
In the present case the Magistrate has opted for third option and by ignoring the police report, entered into an enquiry under section 202 Cr.P.C on the protest petition filed by the Opposite Party No.
2.Basing on the allegations made in the protest petition and relying upon reiterations of the same in the pre-summoning evidence by the three witnesses, took cognizance of the offences against the petitioner. Such a course opted by the learned S.D.J.M., Paralakhemundi is absolutely just, legal and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case and well within scope of the law. Therefore, no interference from this Court in the matter is called for at this stage, however, dismissal of the present petition shall not preclude the petitioner to avail all his remedy under law at the appropriate stage before the court below.
22.Regard being had to the reasons enumerated in the preceding paragraphs, I find no cause to interfere with the impugned order rather I
feel it appropriate to relegate the petitioner to urge all his points before the trial Court at the appropriate stage.
23.With the aforementioned liberty, the CRLMC is disposed of.
………………
S.S. Mishra
(Judge)
The High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Dated the 16th July, 2024/ Swarna, Sr. Stenographer
