Orissa High Court
Sudhamayee Das vs State Of Orissa …. Opp. Party on 18 August, 2025
Author: Chittaranjan Dash
Bench: Chittaranjan Dash
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
CRLMC No.245 of 2017
Sudhamayee Das .... Petitioner
Mr. H.M. Dhal, Advocate
-versus-
State of Orissa .... Opp. Party
Mr. S.J. Mohanty,, Addl. P. P.
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE
BLE MR. JUSTICE CHITTARANJAN DASH
Date of Judgment: 18.08.2025
Chittaranjan Dash, J.
1. By means of this application, the Petitioner seeks to quash
the FIR under Annexure-1
Annexure 1 and the further proceeding in G.R. Case
No.468 of 2015 pending before the learned S.D.J.M., Karanjia.
2. The background facts of the case are that the
he Petitioner
P had
availed a cash credit loan of Rs.47.00 lakhs and Term Loan of
Rs.57.00 lakhs, thus a total loan of Rs.1.04 Crores,
Crores from the
Mayurbhanj Central Co-operative
Co operative Bank Ltd., Karanjia Branch for
installation of a cold storage under the name and style of M/s.
Allied Cold Storage Pvt. Ltd. The Petitioner in order to create the
loan furnished landed properties with building as collateral security
besides mortgaging the plant and machineries in favour of the
Bank. The Petitioner
etitioner, being the Managing
ng Director of the cold
storage, executed necessary bonds In this regard to secure the loan
in favour of the Bank.
Bank However, the Petitioner defaulted in the
repayment of loan which remained outstanding to the tune of Rs.
CRLMC No. 245 of 2017 Page 1 of 10
5,92,91,076/- as an 31.07.2015. The Branch Manager, Central Co-
Co
operative Ltd., Mayurbhanj, lodged an FIR against
inst the Petitioner,
Petitioner
alleging that the Petitioner did not clear the outstanding dues to the
Bank and instead sold out the mortgaged properties vide sale deed
dated 29.07.2015,
29.07.2015 ignoring the restrictions in selling the mortgaged
properties. On the basis of the
t complaint, the Karanjjia P.S. Case
No.160 of 2015 was registered against the Petitioner. The Petitioner
assails the proceeding in the criminal case pursuant to the FIR
lodged by the Branch Manager, Central Co-operative
operative Ltd.,
Mayurbhanj, primarily on the ground that the dispute between the
Parties are civil in nature pertaining to non-payment
payment of outstanding
dues and there is no criminality involved in it. According to the
Petitioner, the Bank had sent a notice on 24.08.2015,
24.08.2015 requiring the
Petitioner to clear the outstanding dues to the tune of
Rs.5,92,91,076/- with interest within three days. As the Petitioner
failed to repay the loan within the said stipulated time, the Bank
lodged the FIR. It is further case of the Petitioner that she
responded to the notice of the Bank vide her letter dated
16.01.2007, whereupon the Bank had invited application for
settlement of the loan accounts under OTS. The Registrar of Co-
Co
Operative Society, Odisha also called for a report on the OTS
proposal submitted by the Petitioner
Petitioner but the Bank did not place any
report. Again in the year 2010, a fresh proposal for OTS was invited
and the Petitioner,
Petitioner being the loanee, submitted application for
settlement of the loan account but such proposal submitted was also
not considered and no communication was made in that regard.
According to the Petitioner, it is because of the latches on the part
of the Bank, the outstanding dues escalated to Rs.5,92,91,076/-.
Rs.5,92,91,076/ The
CRLMC No. 245 of 2017 Page 2 of 10
Petitioner further submits that in order to secure the loan, she had
mortgaged
aged the property in question and had also executed
mortgaged bond dated 07.04.1998,
07.04.1998 and one of the covenants of the
said mortgaged bond reads as follows:-
follows:
“The Mortgagor agrees that in case the mortgaged
properties is sold or re-mortgaged
mortgaged or given on will or
transferred by any other means, the Mortgagee Bank
without following the terms of repayments, shall recall
the entire outstanding amount with interest at the rate of
18½ % per annum along with other expenses etc. till
til to
the date of full realisation”.
reali
3. According to the Petitioner, she not only submitted a
proposal for OTS with the Bank but also made representations before
various authorities of the Government, whereupon the Registrar, Co-
Co
operative Society, vide letter
letter dated 22.07.2009, directed the
Secretary, Central Co-operative
Co operative Bank Ltd., Mayurbhanj, to consider
the OTS proposal of the Petitioner with reference to the points
indicated therein. The Bank compounded the quarterly accrued
interest with the principal even
even though there was no default by the
loanee in the payment of the loan. It is further submitted that the
loanee at times had made excess payments. It would further appear
from the letter that compound interest had been levied and,
accordingly, the Bank was
was asked to submit the revised proposal with
the resolution of the Bank for onward transmission of the same to the
Government in the Co-operative
Co operative Department. But the Bank did not
submit the revised proposal, as is evident from the letter dated
08.08.2016 issued
sued from the office of the Registrar, Co-operative
Co
CRLMC No. 245 of 2017 Page 3 of 10
Society, Odisha. However, the Bank was once again requested to
submit a report to the Registrar.
As a matter of fact, the Bank initiated a proceeding under
Section 68 of the Odisha Co-operative
Co Societies Act in Dispute Case
No. 82/07-08.
08. The said dispute was adjudicated and disposed of vide
order dated 31.10.2009, wherein a decree for a sum of Rs.
1,60,72,801.46 was passed. The said decree was never challenged by
the Bank before the higher forum and, as such,
such, it attained finality,
and the decree so passed was executable under the provisions of the
OCS Act, but the Bank has not initiated any execution proceeding for
realisation
ation of the decretal dues.
It is further the case of the Petitioner that subsequent to the
lodging of the FIR, the Bank also filed a suit bearing C.S. No. 101 of
2016 before the Court of Civil Judge (S.D.), Karanjia, to declare the
sale deed dated 29.07.2015 executed by the Petitioner in favour of a
third party, relegating the mortgaged properties,
properties, as null and void. In
the said suit, the loanee, i.e., the Petitioner, and the purchaser have
been arrayed as defendants.
The Petitioner respectfully submits that the genesis of the
prosecution being one for non-payment
non payment of the loan amount availed
byy the Petitioner, and further that the Bank had already resorted to
the provision under Section 68 of the OCS Act, and further the
challenge by the Bank to declare the action of the Petitioner in
alienating the mortgaged property in favour of the third party
par as null
and void, no criminal act apparently appears from the action of the
Petitioner, but the entire gamut of allegations rests upon civil
consequences. This is further because the covenant under the fund
CRLMC No. 245 of 2017 Page 4 of 10
categorically discloses that, in the event the mortgaged property is
sold, re-mortgaged,
mortgaged, given on will, or transferred by any other means,
the mortgagee Bank, without following the terms of repayment, shall
recall the entire outstanding amount with interest at the rate of 18½
% per annum along with other
other expenses till the date of full
realisation. The Bank too has recalled the entire outstanding dues
and, as such, the lodging of the complaint and initiation of the
criminal proceeding is just an abuse of the process of law, while the
same has only civil consequences. Hence, the learned counsel for the
Petitioner submits for quashing of the criminal proceeding.
4. Mr. Mohanty, learned counsel for the State, on the other
hand, opposed the contentions of the learned counsel for the
Petitioner and submitted that there was criminal intent on the part of
the Petitioner, as the Petitioner, ignoring all the covenants under the
Fund, preferred to sell the properties, knowing them to have been
mortgaged with the Bank, in order to evade the Bank from realizing
the outstanding
utstanding loan upon the sale of the mortgaged properties.
5. Mr. Dhal, learned counsel for the Petitioner relied upon the
decisions in the matter of Usha Chakraborty & another Vs. State of
West Bengal and another reported in (2023) 15 SCC 135,
135 wherein
the
he Hon’ble Supreme Court held as follows:-
follows:
“8. In Paramjeet Batra v. State of Uttarakhand, this
Court held: (SCC p. 676, para 12)
“12. While exercising its jurisdiction under Section
482 of the Code the High Court has to be cautious.
This power is to be used sparingly and only for the
purpose of preventing abuse of the process of any
court or otherwise to secure ends of justice. Whether
Whet
a complaint discloses a criminal offence or not
depends upon the nature of the facts alleged therein.
CRLMC No. 245 of 2017 Page 5 of 10
Whether essential ingredients of criminal offence are
present or not has to be judged by the High Court. A
complaint disclosing civil transactions may also
have a criminal texture. But the High Court must see
whether a dispute which is essentially of a civil
nature is given a cloak of criminal offence. In such a
situation, if a civil remedy is available and is, in fact,
adopted as has happened in this case,
case, the High Court
should not hesitate to quash the criminal proceedings
to prevent abuse of process of the court.”
×××
10.. In Kapil Aggarwal v. Sanjay Sharma, this Court held
that Section 482 is designed to achieve the purpose of
ensuring that criminal proceedings
proceedings are not permitted to
generate into weapons of harassment.
11. In the decision in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, a
two-Judge
Judge Bench of this Court considered the statutory
provisions as also the earlier decisions and held as
under: (SCC pp. 378-79,
378 para 102)
“102…. (1) Where the allegations made in the first
information report or the complaint, even if they are
taken at their face value and accepted in their
entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or
make out a case against the accused.
accused
(2) Where the allegations in the first information
report and other materials, if any, accompanying the
FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying
an investigation by police officers under Section
156(1) of the Code except under an order of a
Magistrate
agistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of
the Code.
(3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in
the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in
support of the same do not disclose the commission
of any offence and make out a case against the th
accused.
(4) Where the allegations in the FIR do not
constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a
non-cognizable
cognizable offence, no investigation is
CRLMC No. 245 of 2017 Page 6 of 10
permitted by a police officer without an order of a
Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of
the Code.
(5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or
complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable
on the basis of which no prudent person can ever
reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground
for proceeding against the accused.
(6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in
any of the provisions of the Code or the Act
concerned (under which a criminal proceeding is
instituted) to the institution and continuance of the
proceedings and/or where there is a specific
provision in the CodeCode or the concerned Act,
providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the
aggrieved party.
(7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly
attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding
is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for
wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view
to spite him due to private and personal grudge.
×××
20. As noticed hereinbefore, the respondent alleged
commission of offences under Sections 323, 384, 406,
423, 467, 468, 420 and 120-B 120 B IPC against the
appellants. A bare perusal of the said allegation and the
ingredients to attract them, as adverted to hereinbefore
would reveal that the allegations are vague and they did
not carry the essential ingredients to constitute the
alleged offences. There is absolutely no allegation in the
complaint that the appellants herein had caused hurt on
the respondent so also, they did not reveal a case that the
appellants had intentionally put the respondent in fear of
injury either to himself or another or by putting him
under suchh fear or injury, dishonestly induced him to
deliver any property or valuable security. The same is
the position with respect to the alleged offences
punishable under Sections 406. 423. 467, 468, 420 and
120-BB IPC. The ingredients to attract the alleged offence
of
referred to hereinbefore and the nature of the allegations
CRLMC No. 245 of 2017 Page 7 of 10
contained in the application filed by the respondent
would undoubtedly make it clear that the respondent had
failed to make specific allegation against the appellants
herein in respect of the aforesaid offences.
21. The factual position thus would reveal that the
genesis as also the purpose of criminal proceedings are
nothing but the aforesaid incident and further that the
dispute involved is essentially of civil nature. The
appellants b and the
the respondents have given a cloak of
criminal offence in the issue. In such circumstance when
the respondent had already resorted to the available civil
remedy and it is pending, going by the decision in
Paramjeet Batra, the High Court would have quashed
the
he criminal proceedings to prevent the abuse of the
process of the Court but for the concealment.
22. In the aforesaid circumstances, coupled with the fact
that in respect of the issue involved, which is of civil
nature, the respondent had already approached
approach the
jurisdictional civil court by instituting a civil suit and it
is pending, there can be no doubt with respect to the fact
that the attempt on the part of the respondent is to use
the criminal proceedings as weapon of harassment
against the appellants.
appellants. The indisputable facts that the
respondent has filed the pending title suit in the year
2015, he got no case that he obtained an interim relief
against his removal from the office of Secretary of the
School Managing Committee as also the trusteeship, that tha
he filed the stated application for an order for
investigation only in April 2017 together with absence
of a case that despite such removal he got a right to get
informed of the affairs of the school and also the trust,
would only support the said conclusion.
conclu
23. For all these reasons, we are of the considered view
that this case invites invocation of the power under
Section 482 CrPC to quash the FIR registered based on
the direction of the Magistrate Court in the aforestated
application and all further proceeding
proceeding in pursuance
thereof. Also, we have no hesitation to hold that
permitting continuance of the criminal proceedings
against the appellants in the aforesaid circumstances
CRLMC No. 245 of 2017 Page 8 of 10
would result in abuse of the process of court and also in
miscarriage of justice.”
justi
6. Coming to the case in hand, admittedly the Petitioner had
obtained a loan from the Mayurbhanj Central Co-operative
Co operative Bank in
order to establish his business of cold storage in the name and style
of M/s. Allied Cold Storage Pvt. Ltd. The Petitioner continued to
repay the loan; however, he defaulted in repayment. The effort of the
Petitioner in getting the loan amount settled with the Bank through
an OTS plan was never considered. On the contrary, the Bank
admittedly proceeded under Section 68 of the OCS Act to recover
the loan amount, and the decree passed upon adjudication of the said
proceeding under Section 68 of the OCS Act could not be finalized
upon execution of the said decree. As seen from the impugned order,
the outstanding dues recoverable have
have been shown to be
Rs.1,60,72,801.46, whereas the Bank lodged the report showing
outstanding of Rs.5,92,91,076/-,
Rs.5,92,91,076/ , which is not in conformity with the
amount sought to be recovered from the Petitioner upon adjudication
of the proceeding. Subsequently, the Bank also moved against the
action of the Petitioner in alienating the mortgaged property in
favour of a third party, challenging it before the appropriate Court of
civil jurisdiction, i.e., the Civil Judge, Senior Division, in Civil Suit
No.101 of 2016.
7. Needless to mention, the Petitioner had executed a
mortgage bond with the Bank, and the covenant thereof,
thereof at
Annexure-4, specifically stipulates that in the event,
event the mortgaged
property is sold, re-mortgaged,
re mortgaged, bequeathed, or transferred by any
other means,
eans, the Bank shall recall the entire outstanding dues with
interest. There is nothing in the said mortgage bond to indicate
CRLMC No. 245 of 2017 Page 9 of 10
initiation of any criminal proceeding. Even otherwise, the ingredients
to attract the alleged offences referred to in the FIR, as well as the
proceeding in G.R. Case No.468 of 2015 and the nature of
allegations contended in the application filed by the Petitioner, would
undoubtedly give rise to a civil action, and there is no material to
indicate that the conduct of the Petitioner would
would be amenable to
criminal action.
8. In view of the above reasons, this court is of the considered
view that the material appearing in the case is fit for invocation of
the power under Section 482 and the same being absolutely in the
nature of dispute in the civil side,
si e, the proceeding in the criminal case
deserves to be quashed. The CRLMC is disposed of accordingly.
(Chittaranjan Dash)
Judge
Bijay
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BIJAY KETAN SAHOO
Reason: Authentication
Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA
Date: 22-Aug-2025 16:40:45
CRLMC No. 245 of 2017 Page 10 of 10