ORDER
B.P. Ray, J.
1. This is an application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short, 'Cr. P.C.') filed by the petitioner with a prayer to quash the order of cognizance dated 18-6-2002 passed by learned S.D.J.M. Athamallik in I.C.C. No. 51 of 2001. Learned S.D.J.M. vide the impugned order has taken cognizance of the offences under Sections 408/427/506 of the Indian Penal Code (in short, 'I.P.C.') and issued process against the petitioner.
2. The facts relevant for disposal of the petition are as follows:
The opp. party No. 1, a Sanitary Inspector under the Govt. of Orissa in the Health Department superannuated from his service on 31-5-1998, while working under the Sub-Divisional Medical Officer (in short, 'S.D.M.O.'), Athamallik. The petitioner by then was working as a Senior Assistant in the Office of the said S.D.M.O., Athamallik and was in-charge of preparation of pension papers of the staff working in the said Office. It is the case of opp. party No. 1 that though he superannuated from his service, but the petitioner did not take any step for preparation of his pension papers and despatching the same to the higher authorities for sanction of the pension and also other retiral benefits. When opp. party No. 1 requested the petitioner to prepare his pension papers, the petitioner said to have demanded illegal gratification of Rs. 2,000/-and did not prepare the same. The opp. party No. 1 thereafter intimated the matter to the authorities in the Department and also filed a complaint case in the Court of learned S.D.J.M., Athamallik. On the direction of learned S.D.J.M., Athamallik under Section 156(3), Cr. P.C. the said complaint was treated as an FIR and Athamallik P.S. Case No. 9 of 2002 was registered for offences under Sections 427/408/506, IPC which corresponds to G.R. Case No. 27 of 2002. On completion of investigation, the Police submitted a final report. Thereafter, on protest of the opp. party No. 1, the complaint case in question has been registered, he has been examined Under Section 200, Cr. P.C. So also the learned S.D.J.M., Athamallik has conducted enquiry Under Section 202, Cr. P.C. and taken cognizance of the offences Under Sections 408/427/ 506, IPC against the petitioner and issued process for his appearance, which has been impugned in this case.
3. Mr. P. P. Ray, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that there being no material to constitute offences Under Sections 408/427/506, IPC the impugned order of cognizance and the consequential order of issuance of process against the petitioner is an abuse of the process of law and as such, the same is liable to be quashed.
4. In response, learned Counsel appearing for opp. party No. 1 submits that where prima facie material is there disclosing the ingredients of the offences for which cognizance has since been taken, this Court should not interfere with the same in exercise of power Under Section 482, Cr. P.C.
5. On perusal of the materials on record, in goes without saying that here in this case, the petitioner appears to have not prepared the pension papers though he was in-charge of the same and subsequently it was found that the relevant papers were found to be missing and destroyed and the petitioner said to have extended threat to the opp. party No. 1 to withdraw the case filed against him by the petitioner. It is not in dispute that a report was lodged by the petitioner that the papers of opp. party No. 1 and also some other official papers were stolen from his Office and the matter was duly reported to the authorities and a Police case was also registered for the same. There is no material to show that the petitioner had destroyed those pension papers. In the meanwhile, the pension papers of the opp. party No. 1 have also been processed and he has also been released with his retiral benefits as revealed from the affidavit filed by the petitioner.
6. The aforesaid materials on record do not reveal that the petitioner in the capacity of a Clerk, in the Office of the S.D.M.O., Athamallik being entrusted with any property or with any dominion over property, dishonestly misappropriated or converted the same to his own use property or dishonestly used or disposed of that property in violation of any direction of law prescribing the mode in which such trust is to be discharged, or any legal contract, express or implied with he had made touching the discharge of such trust or willfully suffers any other person so to do. Much less is the evidence of the petitioner causing any wrongful loss or damages of any property or any such change in the property or in the situation thereof to destroy or diminish its value or utility or to affect it injuriously. So also, there is no convincing material on record to show that the petitioner has extended any threat to opp. party No. 1 to cause any injury to his person, reputation or, property or to the person or reputation of any one in whom the opp. party No. 1 is interested with intent to cause alarm to that person.
7. When there is no prima facie material on record constituting the offences alleged, the trial Court ought not have taken cognizance of the offences alleged in this case. In such premises, continuance of criminal proceeding against the accused will be an abuse of process of law and as such, order of cognizance is liable to be quashed.
8. Hence, the CRLMC is allowed. The impugned order of cognizance dated 18-6-2002 passed by the learned S.D.J.M. Athamallik in ICC No. 51 of 2001 and the consequential order of issuance of process against the petitioner/accused are quashed. The proceeding be dropped.