Orissa High Court
Sundarshan Biswal vs State Of Orissa & Anr. …. Opposite … on 2 July, 2025
Author: Chittaranjan Dash
Bench: Chittaranjan Dash
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
CRLMC No. 2756 of 2017
Sundarshan Biswal .... Petitioner
Mr. S. K. Baral,
Advocate
-versus-
State of Orissa & Anr. .... Opposite Parties
Mr. G. Behera
O.P No.2
Ms. S. Mohanty
Addl. Standing Counsel
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE CHITTARANJAN DASH
Date of Hearing & Date of Judgment: 02.07.2025
Chittaranjan Dash, J.
1. By means of this application under Section 482 of the Code
of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the Petitioner seeks to invoke the
inherent jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Court for quashing of the
criminal proceeding and the order of cognizance dated 04.08.2017
passed in G.R. Case No.1017 of 2016, arising out of Satyabadi P.S.
Case No.97 of 2016, by the learned S.D.J.M., Puri.
2. The background facts of the case, as gathered from the
record, reveals that an FIR was lodged on 30.04.2016 at Satyabadi
Police Station, alleging that on 24.04.2016 at about 11:00 A.M.,
while the Informant was proceeding to attend a call of nature, the
Petitioner, who was allegedly hiding near the house, suddenly
CRLMC No. 2756 of 2017 Page 1 of 6
caught hold of her from behind and attempted to outrage her
modesty. Upon her raising a hue and cry, her husband arrived at the
spot, following which the Petitioner is said to have fled. Based on
the said allegations, Satyabadi P.S. Case No. 97 of 2016 was
registered under Section 354 of the Indian Penal Code and after
completion of investigation, a charge sheet was submitted,
culminating in the learned S.D.J.M., Puri taking cognizance of the
offence by order dated 04.08.2017.
3. Mr. Baral, learned counsel for the Petitioner, in the course
of hearing, submitted that the entire criminal proceeding is a glaring
example of malicious prosecution arising out of longstanding
personal enmity between the Petitioner and the informant’s family.
He drew the attention of the Court to several discrepancies between
the written complaint and the statements recorded under Section
161 Cr.P.C., particularly that of the Informant herself, contending
that the narrative lacks consistency and coherence. He pointed out
that while the FIR alleges an attempt to commit rape, the charge
sheet ultimately filed under Section 354 IPC does not support such
a grave accusation, thereby reflecting non-application of mind by
the investigating agency. Mr. Baral further emphasised that the
alleged incident occurred on 24.04.2016, but the FIR was belatedly
lodged on 30.04.2016 without any satisfactory explanation for the
delay, raising serious doubts about the veracity of the allegations.
He also submitted that the medical report does not support the
prosecution’s claim, as no injury was found on the informant’s
wrists as her bangles were broken, and that the charge sheet was
filed in a mechanical manner without proper investigation. Lastly,
CRLMC No. 2756 of 2017 Page 2 of 6
Mr.Baral highlighted the Petitioner’s background as a disciplined
government servant serving in the police department and argued
that the continuation of the proceeding would cause irreparable
injury to his career and reputation.
4. On the other hand, in reply, Mr. Behera, learned counsel for
the Informant, contended that the delay in registration of the FIR
was not attributable to any inaction on the part of the Informant, but
rather due to the initial refusal by the local police to register the
case. He submitted that the FIR came to be registered only after the
Informant approached the Superintendent of Police and filed a
written representation, which ultimately led to its formal
registration. With respect to the absence of injury noted in the
medical report, learned counsel argued that the nature and extent of
injury, particularly in cases involving sudden acts of force, cannot
always be conclusively assessed at the threshold stage. He further
submitted that not every incident involving the breaking of bangles
would necessarily result in visible injuries on the wrist or hand.
Moreover, Mr. Behera asserted that the trauma of the incident,
coupled with the delay and reluctance in registration of the FIR,
subjected the Informant to severe mental distress, for which she was
compelled to seek medical attention which cannot be ignored at this
stage of the proceeding.
5. Ms. Mohanty, learned Additional Standing Counsel,
submitted that the FIR discloses a cognizable offence under Section
354 IPC. The allegations made therein establish a prima facie case
that the Petitioner used criminal force with intent to outrage the
CRLMC No. 2756 of 2017 Page 3 of 6
Informant’s modesty. She further stated that the delay in lodging
the FIR has been reasonably explained by the counsel for Opposite
Party No.2, as arising from initial police inaction. Ms. Mohanty
finally contended that the veracity of the Informant’s claims and the
arguments made by the learned counsel for the Petitioner are
matters for trial and cannot be grounds for quashing at this stage.
6. In the context of exercise of power under Section 482
Cr.P.C., the Hon’ble Apex Court in its decision in the matter of
State of Haryana and Ors. vs. Ch. Bhajanlal and Ors. reported in
1992 Supp(1) SCC 335, has laid down the following guidelines:-
“(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.
(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 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 accused.
(4) Where, the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a
cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable
offence, no investigation is 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.
CRLMC No. 2756 of 2017 Page 4 of 6
(6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any
of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act
(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 Code 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.”
7. Having considered the rival submissions and perused the
materials available on record, the FIR lodged by the informant
clearly alleges that the Petitioner, on 24.04.2016 at around 11:00
A.M., caught hold of her from behind while she was proceeding to
attend a call of nature, and attempted to outrage her modesty. The
incident is stated to have been witnessed by her husband, who
arrived at the scene upon hearing her cries, following which the
Petitioner fled. The allegations, though disputed by the Petitioner,
prima facie disclose the essential ingredients of an offence under
Section 354 IPC. While the defence has raised serious doubts
regarding delay in FIR, medical evidence, and alleged motive
arising out of enmity, these are arguments of defence and cannot be
conclusively determined in a petition under Section 482 CrPC.
Hence, it cannot be said that the allegations are so inherently
improbable or absurd as to warrant quashing of the proceedings at
this stage, as laid down in State of Haryana vs. Bhajan Lal
(Supra).
CRLMC No. 2756 of 2017 Page 5 of 6
It is, however, open for the Petitioner to raise all permissible
legal and factual pleas at the appropriate stage, including at the
stage of framing of charge or seeking discharge, in accordance with
law.
8. The CRLMC is, accordingly, dismissed. Needless to state,
nothing observed herein shall prejudice the rights of the Petitioner
before the trial court.
(Chittaranjan Dash)
Judge
K.C.Bisoi
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: KRUSHNA CHANDRA BISOI
Reason: Authentication
Location: orissa high court
Date: 03-Jul-2025 16:35:55
CRLMC No. 2756 of 2017 Page 6 of 6