Dr. Kumudini Padhi Vs. Prasanta Kumar Mandal - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
- state financial corporations act, 1951 [63/1951]. section 29; [p.k. tripathy, a.k. parichha & n.prusty, jj] discharge of loan orissa forest act (14 of 1972), section 56 confiscation of vehicle - held, the authorities under section 56 of the orissa forest act, 1972 are not obliged to release the vehicle from the confiscation proceeding or to pay the sale proceeds of the vehicle after the order of confiscation in favour of orissa state financial corporation when such vehicles were purchased on being financed by the orissa state financial corporation and the loan had not been liquidated by the date of the seizure/confiscation of the vehicle. concept of first charge or second charge has no applicability when the vehicle is not otherwise disposed of to determine the liabilities of the.....orderk.p. mohapatra, j.1. the petitioner has challenged the order passed by the learned sub-divisional judicial magistrate, udala, taking cognizance of the offence punishable under section 363, i.p.c. against her,2. the petitioner was serving as a chemistry lecturer of the udala college and was a tenant under the opposite party. on 7-5-1985 the opposite party filed a complaint petition against her and alleged that rama sahu, a minor girl was working in his house as a maid-servant having been entrusted to his legal guardianship, because she was an orphan. on 24-3-1985 the petitioner i kidnapped her and with a student, named, i nirmal kumar prusty sent to her village bahadagoda in bihar to serve as a maidservant in the house of her sister's husband, dr. dinesh sarangi the opposite party.....

Judgment:
ORDER

K.P. Mohapatra, J.

1. The petitioner has challenged the order passed by the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Udala, taking cognizance of the offence punishable under Section 363, I.P.C. against her,

2. The petitioner was serving as a Chemistry Lecturer of the Udala College and was a tenant under the opposite party. On 7-5-1985 the opposite party filed a complaint petition against her and alleged that Rama Sahu, a minor girl was working in his house as a maid-servant having been entrusted to his legal guardianship, because she was an orphan. On 24-3-1985 the petitioner i kidnapped her and with a student, named, i Nirmal Kumar Prusty sent to her village Bahadagoda in Bihar to serve as a maidservant in the house of her sister's husband, Dr. Dinesh Sarangi The opposite party lodged information at the police station and the Officer-in-charge recovered Rama Sahu from the house of Dr. Sarangi and left her in the custody of her maternal uncle Subash Behera on 27-4-1985. On 8-5-1985 the initial statement of the opposite party was recorded and the learned judicial Magistrate passed an order staying the case under Section 210 of the Criminal P.C. ('Code' for short) awaiting a report from Udala Police. The report did not reach him till 23-7-1985 and so on that date on consideration of the materials available on records, namely, the allegations made in the complaint petition, as well as in the initial statement of the opposite party, he took cognizance of an offence under Section 363, I.P.C. against the petitioner, but dismissed the complaint petition so far as the student Nirmal Kumar Prusty was concerned. This order has been challenged in this Court by Mr. R.N. Acharya, learned Counsel for the petitioner, mainly on two grounds. First, while the order of stay under Section 210 of the Code was still in force, the learned Judicial Magistrate committed an error by taking cognizance of the offence against the petitioner. Secondly, a consideration of the allegations made in the complaint petition, as well as in the initial statement, does not reveal a case under Section 363, I.P.C. Accordingly, not only the order of cognizance, but also the entire proceedings is liable to be quashed.

3. So far as the first contention of Mr. Acharya is concerned, undoubtedly the provision of Section 210(1) of the Code was invoked in view of the report which had earlier been lodged with the police by the opposite party relating to the same incident. But there is a decision of this Court reported in (1980) 49 Cut LT 605 : (1981 Cri LJ 189), Padmalochan Sahu v. Lokanath Sethi which does not support his contention. The problem in the reported case was almost identical to the present case. In that case a stay order under Section 210(1) of the Code had been passed, but j the police report was not received for a long time. In the aforesaid premises, Hon'ble S. Acharya, J. held as follows:

The provision for staying the proceedings in the complaint case under Section 210, Criminal Procedure Code, as it appears to me, is not to stay the complaint case indefinitely till investigation in the police case is over or till the filing of the Final Report in the case, more so when the concerned police officer does not act expeditiously in the matter and/or does not submit his report under Section 210, Criminal Procedure Code to the Court at an early date. Provision for stay of the proceedings of the complaint case is made under Section 210, Criminal Procedure Code only for the purpose of calling for a report in the matter from the police officer conducting the investigation to examine whether or not to proceed with the complaint case in the facts and circumstances of the case and in view of the provisions in sub-sees. (2) and (3) of Section 210. If the said report is not submitted within a reasonable time it is not expected of the Court to keep the complaint case shelved for an indefinite period helplessly waiting all the time for the investigating agency to file its report as and when it chooses to do so, as in this case. In this case the Court should have directed the investigating officer to submit his report contemplated under Section 210(1), Cri.P.C. within a particular time. On the failure of the investigating officer to file that report within a reasonable time the Court have proceeded with the complaint case in accordance with law.

The learned Judicial Magistrate in this case awaited till 23-7-1985 and as he found it inexpedient to await any further for the police report, he passed the order taking cognizance of the offence under Section 363, I.P.C. against the petitioner. He acted strictly according to the observations made in the reported decision referred to above. Therefore, the impugned order cannot be quashed on this ground.

4. The second ground is worthy of consideration. The allegation of the opposite party against the petitioner was that she enticed away the minor girl from the legal guardianship of the former so as to work as a maid-servant at a different village in the house of her sister's husband, Dr. Sarangi. Even if all the legation are accepted to be true, yet an offence under Section 363, I.P.C. does not appear to have been made out. The essence of the offence is criminal intention which was completely lacking in this case. The petitioner herself, a woman serving as a college teacher did not have any ill-motive for arranging the engagement of the girl as a maid-servant in the house of her sister's husband. She did not utilise her for any illegal purpose. The girl herself nor her maternal uncle made any complaint against the petitioner. For absolute lack of criminal intention, I am unable to persuade myself to accept the prosecution that a prima facie case under Section 363, I.P.C was made out against her. For an incident of this nature, the Court of law should not have been made the medium of oppression. Her trial shall bring about miscarriage of justice which has to be prevented by invoking the provisions of Section 482 of the Code.

5. In the result, the Criminal Misc. Case is allowed and the proceeding in I.C.C. Case No. 27 of 1985 (T. C. No. 409 of 1985) is quashed.