Orissa High Court
Umasankar Nayak vs Laxmi Priya Munda …. Opp. Party on 21 January, 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
CRLMC No.196 of 2017
Umasankar Nayak .... Petitioner
Mr. Asok Mohanty,
Senior Advocate
-versus-
Laxmi Priya Munda .... Opp. Party
Mr. Bijaya Kumar
Ragada, Advocate
CORAM:
JUSTICE SIBO SANKAR MISHRA
Order No. ORDER
21.01.2025
08. 1. The petitioner by invoking the jurisdiction of this Court
under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. has assailed the order dated
16.02.2016 passed by the learned S.D.J.M., Bonai, whereby
cognizance of offences punishable under Sections 354/354(A) of
I.P.C. read with Section 3(xi) of the SC & ST (PoA) Act, 1989
has been taken against the petitioner.
2. Initially an F.I.R. being Rourkela Mahila P.S. Case No.35 of
2015 was registered against the present petitioner on the
allegation that on 14.05.2015 at about 8.00 A.M. while the
complainant was going to Champajharan temple to perform
Pooja, suddenly two unknown culprits came in a motorcycle and
snatched away her vanity bag containing valuables and
Rs.4,500/-. The complainant went to Chandiposh Police Station
Page 1 of 6
to lodge the report, she came across the present petitioner, who
was posted as Officer-in-charge of the Police Station. The
petitioner allegedly used filthy language against the complainant
and outraged her modesty by rubbing his hand on her breast and
waist. When the complainant raised objection, the petitioner by
aspersion on her caste said "TU ADVASI MUNDA MAIKINA
CHOOTA LOK PATIKARNAHI". Out of fear, the complainant
left the Police Station. The complainant has alleged that she has
been running around for two days to get the F.I.R. registered and
eventually after much persuasion and running around, Rourkela
Mahila P.S. Case No.35 of 2015 has been registered.
3. The investigation in the present case was carried out by the
Deputy Superintendent of Police of Rourkela and vide its report
U/S 173 Cr.P.C dated 29.06.2015 concluded that there is no case
made out against the petitioner. The operative part of the Final
Form reads as under:
"During investigation I have examined the Complt., visited
the spot at Champajharan temple as well as Chandiposh PS.,
examined the witnesses at the spot and it is transpired that the
priest and the shopkeeper present on the relevant time and date
could not notice anything wrong with the lady. Though the lady
was waiting at the temple side, neither she had offered puja nor
complain for help against her snatching. Later she arrived at
Chandiposh PS at about 10.00 A.M. where she alleged to have
been outraged by Umakanta Nayak. But by examining the other
staff inside and outside of P.S. and local market it is found the
complt. after getting down from the Bus, charged her mobile
bearing No.9437768875 in the clinic of Shisira Biswas and talked
to few persons and came to Chandiposh P.S. where she talked to
sentry constable and Home Guards present. Subsequently she met
the in-charge officer SI Nayak and talked to her after being allow
sit on the chair. The sentry constable was present there very well.
After taking she went back without giving formal F.I.R. and met
several persons and known police staff including lady staff but
she did not complain about the outrage issue even she met her
party workers but did not report. Further she had talked to her
friend but did not share. From the investigation it is found she had
talked as many as 32 times to one Cell No.9438392205 is being
Page 2 of 6
used by one Rajendra Munda, reportedly her paramour who was
arrested in Lahunipara P.S. case No.141, dtd.27.12.2014. It was
presumed by Sri R. Munda that SI Nayak of Chandiposh P.S.
became instrument for his arrest for which a project was foisted to
net the SI. The case is supervised by Shri R.B. Panigrahi, OPS-I,
Addl. S.P. Bonai and I have complied the instruction imparted in
S. Note and sought for order from S.P. Rourkela, S.P. Rourkela
pleased to pass order vide No.1525 dtd.27.06.2015 to return the
case as false."
4. Being aggrieved by the aforementioned closure report filed
by the Police, the Opposite Party-informant filed a protest
petition before the Court of the learned S.D.J.M., Bonai being
1.C.C. Case No.27 of 2015 on 01.08.2015. She has made specific
allegation against the petitioner, inter alia, stating as under:
"2. That on 14.05.15, at about 8 a.m. in the morning hour while
the complainant was going to Champajharan temple to perform
Pooja at the point of time suddenly two unknown culprits came
by a motor cycle and snatched away the vanity bag of the
complainant in which Rs.4,500/- was therein the Vanity Bag and
after the incident the complainant went to Chandiposh Police
Station to report the matter but the accused person told that "TU
AMA KATHA BUJH' and the accused being a general person
intentionally with a view to outrage the modesty of the
complainant molested her by rubbing his hand on the back of the
complainant for which the complainant got up from the chair at
that point of time the accused person again rubbed his hand on the
chest and waist of the complainant and when the complainant
protested such illegal action/attitude of the accused person at that
point of time, the accused person scolded the complainant that
"TU ADVASI MUNDA MAIKINA CHOOTA LOK
PATIKARNAHI" for which the complainant left the Police
Station being ashamed and fear and the complainant felt
humiliated and left the police station and that thereafter the
complainant came out side of the Police Station and told the
incident occurred inside the office of the accused person before
the staff of the Police station, but the staff of the Chandiposh
Police Station out of fear of the accused person who is the In-
Charge of the P.S. did not tell anything for which the complainant
told the fact to witness No.2 over mobile and there after the
complainant went to Bonaigarh and lodged a report against the
accused person before the S.D.P.O. Bonaigarh (Witness No.4)
and the S.D.P.O. Bonaigarh duly received the report of the
complainant and told her to come on the next date i.e. 15.05.15 to
the spot at Chandiposh Police Station and thereafter, the
complainant came to her village and narrated the entire incident
Page 3 of 6
occurred at Chandiposh Police Station and near Champajharan
Temple and also the act committed by the accused person and
also snatch of the vanity bag containing Rs.4,500/- (Rupees four
thousand five hundred) before the Witness No.2 and 3 and out of
shame went to the stage of depression."
5. The specific allegation as has been reproduced from the
protest petition has also been supported by the initial statement of
the complainant recorded under Section 200/202 Cr.P.C. The
statement of the other witnesses under Section 202 Cr.P.C. was
also recorded, they too supported the complainant version.
6. By taking into consideration the narration of the complaint
supported by the initial statement of the complainant and the
other witnesses, the trial court vide impugned order dated
16.02.2016 has taken cognizance of the offences punishable
under Sections 354/354(A) of I.P.C. read with Section 3(xi) of
the SC & ST (PoA) Act, 1989.The petitioner is aggrieved and has
filed this petition questioning the same.
7. Mr. Asok Mohanty, learned Senior Counsel vehemently
argued that the investigation has been carried out by a higher
rank Police Officer and found no case is made out against the
petitioner. The present case is lingering since 2015. He has taken
me to the statement of the witnesses recorded under Section 161
Cr.P.C. to persuade this Court that indeed no case is made out
against the petitioner. The protest petition has been filed by the
complainant out of vengeance and with a motivated design.
8. I have carefully perused the entire record placed before me
particularly the protest petition, initial statement and the Final
Form filed by the Police. I am not persuaded by the contention
raised by Mr. Mohanty, learned Senior Counsel.
9. Mr. B.K. Ragada, learned counsel appearing for the sole
Page 4 of 6
Opposite Party submits that reading of the allegation supported
by the initial statement makes out a case against the petitioner for
the alleged offences, cognizance of which has been taken by the
court below. At the stage of cognizance, the law doesn't permits
the trial court to appreciate the evidence in detail as has been
attempted by the learned Senior Counsel to persuade the Court.
The only requirement at this stage is to arrive at a subjective
satisfaction as to whether prima facie case is made out or not. He
submits that the trial court has rightly taken cognizance, no fault
could be found from the impugned order.
10. It is apt to rely on the judgement of the Apex Court in the
context of ambit and power of the trial court to take cognizance of
offences. In Rashmji Kumar (smt) Vs. Mahesh Kumar Bhada,
AIRONLINE 1996 SC 699, the court held that-
"It is fairly settled legal position that at the time of taking
cognisance of the offence, the Court has to consider only the
averments made in the complaint or in the charge-sheet filed
under Section 173, as the case may be. It was held in State of
Bihar v. Rajendra Agrawalla [(1996) 8 SCC 164] that it is not
open for the Court to sift or appreciate the evidence at that stage
with reference to the material and come to the conclusion that no
prima facie case is made out for proceeding further in the matter.
It is equally settled law that it is open to the Court, before issuing
the process, to record the evidence and on consideration of the
averments made in the complaint and the evidence thus adduced,
it is required to find out whether an offence has been made out.
On finding that such an offence has been made out and after
taking cognizance thereof, process would be issued to the
respondent to take further steps in the matters."
11. I have given a careful consideration to the facts of the case
and the contention raised by both the parties at the Bar and arrive
at a conclusion that the impugned order requires no indulgence at
this stage. Therefore, the petition is dismissed. However,
dismissal of the petition shall not preclude the petitioner to resort
Page 5 of 6
to any remedy available to him under law at any stage even
before the trial court or any competent court of jurisdiction.
(S.S. Mishra)
Kar Judge
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: ASISH KUMAR KAR
Designation: ADR-cum-Addl. Principal Secretary
Reason: Authentication
Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack
Date: 22-Jan-2025 17:39:56
Page 6 of 6
[ad_1]
Source link