Krushna Chandra Sahu and anr Vs State of Orissa and anr - Citation 535665 - Court Judgment

Excerpt:

Notice (8): Undefined variable: kword [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 120]Code Context                                echo "<div class='table-bordered'><b>Excerpt:</b><br/>";

                                    if (trim($desc['Judgement']['casenote'])) {

                                        echo $this->Wand->highlight($this->Excerpt->extractRelevant($kword,strtolower(strip_tags($desc['Judgement']['casenote']))), $query);
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Krushna Chandra Sahu and anr Vs State of Orissa and anr - Citation 535665 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '535665',
			'acts' => 'Arbitration Act; <a href="/act/50902/code-of-criminal-procedure-1973-complete-act">Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1973</a> - Sections 156(3), 161 and 482; Indian Penal Code (IPC) - Sections 34, 323, 341, 392 and 506',
			'appealno' => 'Crl. Misc. Case No. 1814 of 2004',
			'appellant' => 'Krushna Chandra Sahu and anr.',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Krushna Chandra Sahu and anr. Vs. State of Orissa and anr.',
			'casenote' => 'Criminal - Cognizance - Quashing of - Section 156(3) of Code of Criminal Procedure,1973(Cr. PC) and Sections 34, 323, 341, 392 and 506 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) - Respondent and petitioners constituted partnership firm according - Petitioners misappropriated firm's money - Respondent approached police for lodging FIR against petitioners - Police refused to lodged FIR - Respondent filed complaint before Magistrate under Section 156(3) of Cr. P. C. - Magistrate allowed complaint and directed police to lodge FIR - Police officer lodged FIR against petitioners for commission of offence under Sections 341, 323, 392 and 506/34 of IPC and conducted investigation - On completion of investigation, police submitted charge sheet and Magistrate took cognizance of offence against petitioners - Hence, present writ petition filed seeking quashment of cognizance taken - Held, from facts and available material on record it established that respondent falsely implicated petitioners in present case due to dispute arose between them in relation to partnership firm running by them - Sufficient ground exist behind present lame prosecution and sufficient reasons and evidences exist to quash the same - Accordingly, writ petition allowed and order of cognizance quashed  - LABOUR & SERVICES 
Pay Scale:[Tarun Chatterjee & R.M. Lodha,JJ] Fixation - Orissa Service Code (1939), Rule 74(b)  Promotion - Government servant, by virtue of Rule 74(b), gets higher pay than what he was getting immediately before his promotion - Circular Dated 19.3.1983 modifying earlier Circular Dated 18.6.1982 resulting in  reduction of pay of employee on promotion  Held, It is not legal. Statutory Rules cannot be altered or amended by such Executive orders or Circulars or Instructions nor can they replace Statutory Rules.
 -  2 since failed in his attempt to rope in petitioner .No.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '(State of Haryana v. Ch. Bhajanlal and Ors.;',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => ' R.K. Nayak,;P.C. Jena
and;S.P. Dash, Advs.',
			'counseldef' => ' Addl. Standing Counsel for O.P. No. 1 and; R.K. Nanda, Adv. for O.P. No. 2',
			'court' => 'Orissa',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2005-10-07',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => ' A.K. Samantaray, J.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">A.K. Samantaray, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. In this Criminal Misc. Case under Section 482, Cr.P.C. the petitioners who are father and sort have prayed for quashing of the order of cognizance dated 19.12.2003 in G.R. Case No. 23 of 2003 passed by learned J.M.F.C.. Patrapur (GM). Learned Magistrate took cognizance of the offences under Sections 341, 323, 392, 506/34, IPC on the allegation of opposite party No. 2.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The prosecution case, as it appears from the complaint petition which was subsequently treated as FIR as per the direction of the learned Magistrate under Section 156(3), CrPC, in short is that the complainant-opposite party No. 2 A. Ranga Rao. petitioner No. 1 Krushna Chandra Sahu, Rajendra Kumar Sahu. Basudev Panda. Pravakar Sabat and Prafulla Kumar Sahu constituted a firm in the name and style of 'Madhupriya Estate'. They also executed a partnership deed on 1.8,1998 and according to the terms of the partnership deed they had to share the capital. It is alleged that petitioner No. 1 Krushna Chandra Sahu did not render any account, income and expenditure of the firm to the complainant-partner A. Ranga Rao, For this act of petitioner No. 1 the relationship between the complainant and the petitioner No. 1 soured. When the complainant insisted for rendering accounts petitioner No. 1 did not give the same and misappropriated the firm's money. It is also alleged that the complainant had reported the matter on 15.10.2002 at Golanthara PS, but the police did not take any action on the matter. It is also alleged in the complaint petition that on 5.2.2003 both the petitioner came in a Motor-cycle, rebuked the complainant, threatened him. dealt fist blows and took away cash of Rs. 20,000/- from his pocket when he was proceeding on the canal road towards Berhampur town. On these allegations a complaint petition was filed alleging further that the complainant had been to the police and the police called him 4-5 times, but ultimately did not take any action. The said complaint petition filed before the learned Magistrate on 17.2.2003 was registered as ICC No. 2/2003 and subsequently the learned Magistrate forwarded the complaint petition to the OIC. Golanthara PS to treat the same as FIR under Section 156(3). CrPC. and to proceed with the same in accordance with law. On receipt of the said complaint from the Court the Golanthara police treated the same as FIR, registered Golanthara PS case No. 98/ 2003 for the offence under Sections 341, 323, 392 and 506/34 IPC and proceeded with the investigation and on completion of the investigation submitted charge-sheet. Although there was no legal material available/collected during the course of the investigation and the learned Magistrate after receipt of the charge-sheet without application of his judicial mind and without considering the backdrop which resulted in the initiation of the case against the petitioners, took cognizance of the offence it is alleged.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. The salient grounds taken by the petitioners in this application' under Section 482, CrPC to quash the order of cognizance are that there exists dispute of civil nature between the parties arising out of the partnership firm. The complainant-opposite party No. 2 since failed in his attempt to rope in petitioner . No. 1 in another criminal case which he had earlier initiated against him, he has come out with the frivolous complaint to wreck vengeance against the petitioners who are father and son and are in no way involved in the alleged offences.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. During the hearing of the petition and also on a perusal of the complaint/FIR and the case diary I come to find that the parties had admittedly started a real estate business and it is also admitted fact that there was a partnership deed executed by the parties to the said partnership firm on 1.8.1998 where this petitioner No. l Krushna Chandra Sahu, A. Ranga Rao, the complainant, Rajendra Kumar Sahu, Basudev Panda, Pravakar Sabat and Prafulla Kumar Sahu were the partners. On a scrutiny of the said partnership deed which contains many clauses regarding the function of the firm, share to be contributed, role which be played by each partner have been specifically mentioned in the said deed. In clause 18 there is specific mention that any dispute or difference arising amongst the partners with respect to the construction or interpretation of the deed or any other matter relating to the partnership affairs shall be referred to arbitration under the provisions of Indian Arbitration Act by appointing Arbitrator.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners argued that since undisputedly there is a partnership firm and the entire allegation of the complainant hinges round the said partnership business and when particularly there is a clause in the partnership deed that any dispute between the parties shall be referred to an Arbitrator by appointing one under the Arbitration Act, whose decision shall be final and binding on the parties to which all the partners including the complainant agreed, filing of a complaint petition on flimsy and false allegations against another partner and his son is totally unwarranted.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. Taking me into col.6 of the complaint petition of the complainant, learned Counsel for the petitioner pointed out that the alleged occurrence, according to the petitioner, took place on 5.2.2003 which has been mentioned in the said column. But in the said column it is also mentioned that the complainant lodged a report at Golanthara PS regarding the incident on 16.10.2002. He argued vehemently that this is itself is a glaring instance as to how the case is a false and frivolous one initiated to wreck vengeance and when the occurrence itself according to the complainant took place on 5.2.2003, report regarding such occurrence could not have been lodged at the police station on 16.10.2002. Learned counsel also took me through the statements of the other partners of the firm recorded by the I.O. under Section 161, CrPC., who have all stated that the complainant-opposite party No. 2 had dispute relating to the partnership firm with petitioner No. 1 Krushna Chandra Sahu for non-contribution of Rs. l lakh to the firm by complainant-opposite party No. 2. He further took me to the case diary wherein during the investigation of the case the I.O. has categorically mentioned that during the year 2002, due to misunderstanding that prevailed between the parties, the dispute arising out of the partnership firm and the contribution to the same the complainant-opposite party No. 2 reported on 17.10.2002 and 20.1.2003 and petitioner No. 1 Krushna Chandra Sahu had reported on 20.1.2003 and since the allegations related to the partnership firm and both had alleged against each other and no document could be produced to substantiate the allegations the police had made only station diary entries as the dispute was found to be civil nature. Apart from that, the parties became political rivals of each other during the Panchayat and Zilla Parishad elections, although earlier they belonged to one party. Lastly, it was submitted by learned Counsel for the petitioner that the entire episode which has been narrated in the complaint petition is the outcome of the partnership business and if the complainant had any grudge and any doubt regarding misappropriation of partnership fund by the accused petitioner No. l, he could have taken shelter in the appropriate forum by filing civil litigation. Without doing so, he has resorted to criminal prosecution on very flimsy-ground and not only that he has implicated the son of petitioner No. 1 who is an engineering student and prosecuting his study, he submitted.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. It is apparent on record that petitioner No. 1 is businessman and it is submitted by learned Counsel for the petitioner that he is an income tax assessee and the allegation that has been brought by the complainant in his complaint petition which was subsequently treated as FIR by order of learned Magistrate is that the petitioners obstructed the complainant on his way while he was proceeding in his motor-cycle, threatened him, dealt pushes and fist blows, criminally intimidated him and took away cash of Rs. 20,000/- from his pocket. On the face of all these earlier disputes between the parties allegations and counter allegations against each other and political rivalry and the other facts that I have discussed in the preceding paragraphs relating to. the report about this incident to the police even before it took place, makes the matter highly suspicious, rather improbable.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. Learned Addl. Standing Counsel appearing for the State submitted that enmity being, a double edged weapon and in the instant case when the police has submitted charge-sheet and the learned Magistrate has taken cognizance of the offence basing on the same, the order of cognizance should not be quashed as the truth or otherwise of the matter can be ascertained only after a legitimate trial of the petitioners in the Court of learned Magistrate. Learned counsel for the petitioner, on the other hand, relying on a decision reported in : 1992CriLJ527 (State of Haryana v. Ch. Bhajanlal and Ors.) submitted in the light of the said judgment that in the instant case, the FIR of the complainant, even it is taken on its face value and accepted in its entirety it does not constitute any offence or make out any case against the petitioners. He also submitted that the allegations in the complaint/FIR are so absurd and inherently improbable that on the basis of the same no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion. He vehemently urged that this criminal proceeding even manifestly attended with mala fide and the same is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wrecking vengeance on the accused-petitioners with a view to spite them due to private and personal grudge.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. On the admitted factual position and the constant rift between the parties which culminated out of partnership firm and subsequent political rivalry has given rise to this criminal case and the valid object behind this lame prosecution, the very nature of the material on which the structure of the prosecution rests are sufficient for this Court to quash the proceeding in the interest of justice as ends of justice are higher than the ends of mere law though justice has got to be administered according to the laws made by the Legislature. In my view, this is a fit case where the inherent power u/s 482, CrPC should be exercised to quash the proceeding as the entire prosecution case rests on false, frivolous and vexatious allegations and to allow continuance of the proceeding would be sheer misuse of the process of the Court.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. In the result, I quash the order of cognizance order dated 19.12.2003 in G.R. Case No. 23 of 2003 pending in the Court of J.M.F.C., Patrapur and so also the criminal proceeding.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">11. The Criminal Misc. Case is accordingly allowed.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '2005(II)OLR793',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'State of Orissa and anr.',
			'sub' => 'Criminal',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'krushna-chandra-sahu-vs-state-orissa',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '535665',
		(int) 1 => 'krushna-chandra-sahu-vs-state-orissa'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Krushna Chandra Sahu and anr Vs State of Orissa and anr - Citation 535665 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '535665',
		'acts' => 'Arbitration Act; <a href="/act/50902/code-of-criminal-procedure-1973-complete-act">Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1973</a> - Sections 156(3), 161 and 482; Indian Penal Code (IPC) - Sections 34, 323, 341, 392 and 506',
		'appealno' => 'Crl. Misc. Case No. 1814 of 2004',
		'appellant' => 'Krushna Chandra Sahu and anr.',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Krushna Chandra Sahu and anr. Vs. State of Orissa and anr.',
		'casenote' => 'Criminal - Cognizance - Quashing of - Section 156(3) of Code of Criminal Procedure,1973(Cr. PC) and Sections 34, 323, 341, 392 and 506 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) - Respondent and petitioners constituted partnership firm according - Petitioners misappropriated firm's money - Respondent approached police for lodging FIR against petitioners - Police refused to lodged FIR - Respondent filed complaint before Magistrate under Section 156(3) of Cr. P. C. - Magistrate allowed complaint and directed police to lodge FIR - Police officer lodged FIR against petitioners for commission of offence under Sections 341, 323, 392 and 506/34 of IPC and conducted investigation - On completion of investigation, police submitted charge sheet and Magistrate took cognizance of offence against petitioners - Hence, present writ petition filed seeking quashment of cognizance taken - Held, from facts and available material on record it established that respondent falsely implicated petitioners in present case due to dispute arose between them in relation to partnership firm running by them - Sufficient ground exist behind present lame prosecution and sufficient reasons and evidences exist to quash the same - Accordingly, writ petition allowed and order of cognizance quashed  - LABOUR & SERVICES 
Pay Scale:[Tarun Chatterjee & R.M. Lodha,JJ] Fixation - Orissa Service Code (1939), Rule 74(b)  Promotion - Government servant, by virtue of Rule 74(b), gets higher pay than what he was getting immediately before his promotion - Circular Dated 19.3.1983 modifying earlier Circular Dated 18.6.1982 resulting in  reduction of pay of employee on promotion  Held, It is not legal. Statutory Rules cannot be altered or amended by such Executive orders or Circulars or Instructions nor can they replace Statutory Rules.
 -  2 since failed in his attempt to rope in petitioner .No.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '(State of Haryana v. Ch. Bhajanlal and Ors.;',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => ' R.K. Nayak,;P.C. Jena
and;S.P. Dash, Advs.',
		'counseldef' => ' Addl. Standing Counsel for O.P. No. 1 and; R.K. Nanda, Adv. for O.P. No. 2',
		'court' => 'Orissa',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2005-10-07',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => ' A.K. Samantaray, J.',
		'judgement' => '<p>A.K. Samantaray, J.</p><p>1. In this Criminal Misc. Case under Section 482, Cr.P.C. the petitioners who are father and sort have prayed for quashing of the order of cognizance dated 19.12.2003 in G.R. Case No. 23 of 2003 passed by learned J.M.F.C.. Patrapur (GM). Learned Magistrate took cognizance of the offences under Sections 341, 323, 392, 506/34, IPC on the allegation of opposite party No. 2.</p><p>2. The prosecution case, as it appears from the complaint petition which was subsequently treated as FIR as per the direction of the learned Magistrate under Section 156(3), CrPC, in short is that the complainant-opposite party No. 2 A. Ranga Rao. petitioner No. 1 Krushna Chandra Sahu, Rajendra Kumar Sahu. Basudev Panda. Pravakar Sabat and Prafulla Kumar Sahu constituted a firm in the name and style of 'Madhupriya Estate'. They also executed a partnership deed on 1.8,1998 and according to the terms of the partnership deed they had to share the capital. It is alleged that petitioner No. 1 Krushna Chandra Sahu did not render any account, income and expenditure of the firm to the complainant-partner A. Ranga Rao, For this act of petitioner No. 1 the relationship between the complainant and the petitioner No. 1 soured. When the complainant insisted for rendering accounts petitioner No. 1 did not give the same and misappropriated the firm's money. It is also alleged that the complainant had reported the matter on 15.10.2002 at Golanthara PS, but the police did not take any action on the matter. It is also alleged in the complaint petition that on 5.2.2003 both the petitioner came in a Motor-cycle, rebuked the complainant, threatened him. dealt fist blows and took away cash of Rs. 20,000/- from his pocket when he was proceeding on the canal road towards Berhampur town. On these allegations a complaint petition was filed alleging further that the complainant had been to the police and the police called him 4-5 times, but ultimately did not take any action. The said complaint petition filed before the learned Magistrate on 17.2.2003 was registered as ICC No. 2/2003 and subsequently the learned Magistrate forwarded the complaint petition to the OIC. Golanthara PS to treat the same as FIR under Section 156(3). CrPC. and to proceed with the same in accordance with law. On receipt of the said complaint from the Court the Golanthara police treated the same as FIR, registered Golanthara PS case No. 98/ 2003 for the offence under Sections 341, 323, 392 and 506/34 IPC and proceeded with the investigation and on completion of the investigation submitted charge-sheet. Although there was no legal material available/collected during the course of the investigation and the learned Magistrate after receipt of the charge-sheet without application of his judicial mind and without considering the backdrop which resulted in the initiation of the case against the petitioners, took cognizance of the offence it is alleged.</p><p>3. The salient grounds taken by the petitioners in this application' under Section 482, CrPC to quash the order of cognizance are that there exists dispute of civil nature between the parties arising out of the partnership firm. The complainant-opposite party No. 2 since failed in his attempt to rope in petitioner . No. 1 in another criminal case which he had earlier initiated against him, he has come out with the frivolous complaint to wreck vengeance against the petitioners who are father and son and are in no way involved in the alleged offences.</p><p>4. During the hearing of the petition and also on a perusal of the complaint/FIR and the case diary I come to find that the parties had admittedly started a real estate business and it is also admitted fact that there was a partnership deed executed by the parties to the said partnership firm on 1.8.1998 where this petitioner No. l Krushna Chandra Sahu, A. Ranga Rao, the complainant, Rajendra Kumar Sahu, Basudev Panda, Pravakar Sabat and Prafulla Kumar Sahu were the partners. On a scrutiny of the said partnership deed which contains many clauses regarding the function of the firm, share to be contributed, role which be played by each partner have been specifically mentioned in the said deed. In clause 18 there is specific mention that any dispute or difference arising amongst the partners with respect to the construction or interpretation of the deed or any other matter relating to the partnership affairs shall be referred to arbitration under the provisions of Indian Arbitration Act by appointing Arbitrator.</p><p>5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners argued that since undisputedly there is a partnership firm and the entire allegation of the complainant hinges round the said partnership business and when particularly there is a clause in the partnership deed that any dispute between the parties shall be referred to an Arbitrator by appointing one under the Arbitration Act, whose decision shall be final and binding on the parties to which all the partners including the complainant agreed, filing of a complaint petition on flimsy and false allegations against another partner and his son is totally unwarranted.</p><p>6. Taking me into col.6 of the complaint petition of the complainant, learned Counsel for the petitioner pointed out that the alleged occurrence, according to the petitioner, took place on 5.2.2003 which has been mentioned in the said column. But in the said column it is also mentioned that the complainant lodged a report at Golanthara PS regarding the incident on 16.10.2002. He argued vehemently that this is itself is a glaring instance as to how the case is a false and frivolous one initiated to wreck vengeance and when the occurrence itself according to the complainant took place on 5.2.2003, report regarding such occurrence could not have been lodged at the police station on 16.10.2002. Learned counsel also took me through the statements of the other partners of the firm recorded by the I.O. under Section 161, CrPC., who have all stated that the complainant-opposite party No. 2 had dispute relating to the partnership firm with petitioner No. 1 Krushna Chandra Sahu for non-contribution of Rs. l lakh to the firm by complainant-opposite party No. 2. He further took me to the case diary wherein during the investigation of the case the I.O. has categorically mentioned that during the year 2002, due to misunderstanding that prevailed between the parties, the dispute arising out of the partnership firm and the contribution to the same the complainant-opposite party No. 2 reported on 17.10.2002 and 20.1.2003 and petitioner No. 1 Krushna Chandra Sahu had reported on 20.1.2003 and since the allegations related to the partnership firm and both had alleged against each other and no document could be produced to substantiate the allegations the police had made only station diary entries as the dispute was found to be civil nature. Apart from that, the parties became political rivals of each other during the Panchayat and Zilla Parishad elections, although earlier they belonged to one party. Lastly, it was submitted by learned Counsel for the petitioner that the entire episode which has been narrated in the complaint petition is the outcome of the partnership business and if the complainant had any grudge and any doubt regarding misappropriation of partnership fund by the accused petitioner No. l, he could have taken shelter in the appropriate forum by filing civil litigation. Without doing so, he has resorted to criminal prosecution on very flimsy-ground and not only that he has implicated the son of petitioner No. 1 who is an engineering student and prosecuting his study, he submitted.</p><p>7. It is apparent on record that petitioner No. 1 is businessman and it is submitted by learned Counsel for the petitioner that he is an income tax assessee and the allegation that has been brought by the complainant in his complaint petition which was subsequently treated as FIR by order of learned Magistrate is that the petitioners obstructed the complainant on his way while he was proceeding in his motor-cycle, threatened him, dealt pushes and fist blows, criminally intimidated him and took away cash of Rs. 20,000/- from his pocket. On the face of all these earlier disputes between the parties allegations and counter allegations against each other and political rivalry and the other facts that I have discussed in the preceding paragraphs relating to. the report about this incident to the police even before it took place, makes the matter highly suspicious, rather improbable.</p><p>8. Learned Addl. Standing Counsel appearing for the State submitted that enmity being, a double edged weapon and in the instant case when the police has submitted charge-sheet and the learned Magistrate has taken cognizance of the offence basing on the same, the order of cognizance should not be quashed as the truth or otherwise of the matter can be ascertained only after a legitimate trial of the petitioners in the Court of learned Magistrate. Learned counsel for the petitioner, on the other hand, relying on a decision reported in : 1992CriLJ527 (State of Haryana v. Ch. Bhajanlal and Ors.) submitted in the light of the said judgment that in the instant case, the FIR of the complainant, even it is taken on its face value and accepted in its entirety it does not constitute any offence or make out any case against the petitioners. He also submitted that the allegations in the complaint/FIR are so absurd and inherently improbable that on the basis of the same no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion. He vehemently urged that this criminal proceeding even manifestly attended with mala fide and the same is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wrecking vengeance on the accused-petitioners with a view to spite them due to private and personal grudge.</p><p>9. On the admitted factual position and the constant rift between the parties which culminated out of partnership firm and subsequent political rivalry has given rise to this criminal case and the valid object behind this lame prosecution, the very nature of the material on which the structure of the prosecution rests are sufficient for this Court to quash the proceeding in the interest of justice as ends of justice are higher than the ends of mere law though justice has got to be administered according to the laws made by the Legislature. In my view, this is a fit case where the inherent power u/s 482, CrPC should be exercised to quash the proceeding as the entire prosecution case rests on false, frivolous and vexatious allegations and to allow continuance of the proceeding would be sheer misuse of the process of the Court.</p><p>10. In the result, I quash the order of cognizance order dated 19.12.2003 in G.R. Case No. 23 of 2003 pending in the Court of J.M.F.C., Patrapur and so also the criminal proceeding.</p><p>11. The Criminal Misc. Case is accordingly allowed.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '2005(II)OLR793',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'State of Orissa and anr.',
		'sub' => 'Criminal',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'krushna-chandra-sahu-vs-state-orissa'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '535665',
	(int) 1 => 'krushna-chandra-sahu-vs-state-orissa'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/535665/krushna-chandra-sahu-vs-state-orissa'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$caseref = '(State of Haryana v. Ch. Bhajanlal and Ors.<br>'
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 120
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 120]Code Context                                echo "<div class='table-bordered'><b>Excerpt:</b><br/>";

                                    if (trim($desc['Judgement']['casenote'])) {

                                        echo $this->Wand->highlight($this->Excerpt->extractRelevant($kword,strtolower(strip_tags($desc['Judgement']['casenote']))), $query);
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Krushna Chandra Sahu and anr Vs State of Orissa and anr - Citation 535665 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '535665',
			'acts' => 'Arbitration Act; <a href="/act/50902/code-of-criminal-procedure-1973-complete-act">Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1973</a> - Sections 156(3), 161 and 482; Indian Penal Code (IPC) - Sections 34, 323, 341, 392 and 506',
			'appealno' => 'Crl. Misc. Case No. 1814 of 2004',
			'appellant' => 'Krushna Chandra Sahu and anr.',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Krushna Chandra Sahu and anr. Vs. State of Orissa and anr.',
			'casenote' => 'Criminal - Cognizance - Quashing of - Section 156(3) of Code of Criminal Procedure,1973(Cr. PC) and Sections 34, 323, 341, 392 and 506 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) - Respondent and petitioners constituted partnership firm according - Petitioners misappropriated firm's money - Respondent approached police for lodging FIR against petitioners - Police refused to lodged FIR - Respondent filed complaint before Magistrate under Section 156(3) of Cr. P. C. - Magistrate allowed complaint and directed police to lodge FIR - Police officer lodged FIR against petitioners for commission of offence under Sections 341, 323, 392 and 506/34 of IPC and conducted investigation - On completion of investigation, police submitted charge sheet and Magistrate took cognizance of offence against petitioners - Hence, present writ petition filed seeking quashment of cognizance taken - Held, from facts and available material on record it established that respondent falsely implicated petitioners in present case due to dispute arose between them in relation to partnership firm running by them - Sufficient ground exist behind present lame prosecution and sufficient reasons and evidences exist to quash the same - Accordingly, writ petition allowed and order of cognizance quashed  - LABOUR & SERVICES 
Pay Scale:[Tarun Chatterjee & R.M. Lodha,JJ] Fixation - Orissa Service Code (1939), Rule 74(b)  Promotion - Government servant, by virtue of Rule 74(b), gets higher pay than what he was getting immediately before his promotion - Circular Dated 19.3.1983 modifying earlier Circular Dated 18.6.1982 resulting in  reduction of pay of employee on promotion  Held, It is not legal. Statutory Rules cannot be altered or amended by such Executive orders or Circulars or Instructions nor can they replace Statutory Rules.
 -  2 since failed in his attempt to rope in petitioner .No.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '(State of Haryana v. Ch. Bhajanlal and Ors.;',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => ' R.K. Nayak,;P.C. Jena
and;S.P. Dash, Advs.',
			'counseldef' => ' Addl. Standing Counsel for O.P. No. 1 and; R.K. Nanda, Adv. for O.P. No. 2',
			'court' => 'Orissa',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2005-10-07',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => ' A.K. Samantaray, J.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">A.K. Samantaray, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. In this Criminal Misc. Case under Section 482, Cr.P.C. the petitioners who are father and sort have prayed for quashing of the order of cognizance dated 19.12.2003 in G.R. Case No. 23 of 2003 passed by learned J.M.F.C.. Patrapur (GM). Learned Magistrate took cognizance of the offences under Sections 341, 323, 392, 506/34, IPC on the allegation of opposite party No. 2.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The prosecution case, as it appears from the complaint petition which was subsequently treated as FIR as per the direction of the learned Magistrate under Section 156(3), CrPC, in short is that the complainant-opposite party No. 2 A. Ranga Rao. petitioner No. 1 Krushna Chandra Sahu, Rajendra Kumar Sahu. Basudev Panda. Pravakar Sabat and Prafulla Kumar Sahu constituted a firm in the name and style of 'Madhupriya Estate'. They also executed a partnership deed on 1.8,1998 and according to the terms of the partnership deed they had to share the capital. It is alleged that petitioner No. 1 Krushna Chandra Sahu did not render any account, income and expenditure of the firm to the complainant-partner A. Ranga Rao, For this act of petitioner No. 1 the relationship between the complainant and the petitioner No. 1 soured. When the complainant insisted for rendering accounts petitioner No. 1 did not give the same and misappropriated the firm's money. It is also alleged that the complainant had reported the matter on 15.10.2002 at Golanthara PS, but the police did not take any action on the matter. It is also alleged in the complaint petition that on 5.2.2003 both the petitioner came in a Motor-cycle, rebuked the complainant, threatened him. dealt fist blows and took away cash of Rs. 20,000/- from his pocket when he was proceeding on the canal road towards Berhampur town. On these allegations a complaint petition was filed alleging further that the complainant had been to the police and the police called him 4-5 times, but ultimately did not take any action. The said complaint petition filed before the learned Magistrate on 17.2.2003 was registered as ICC No. 2/2003 and subsequently the learned Magistrate forwarded the complaint petition to the OIC. Golanthara PS to treat the same as FIR under Section 156(3). CrPC. and to proceed with the same in accordance with law. On receipt of the said complaint from the Court the Golanthara police treated the same as FIR, registered Golanthara PS case No. 98/ 2003 for the offence under Sections 341, 323, 392 and 506/34 IPC and proceeded with the investigation and on completion of the investigation submitted charge-sheet. Although there was no legal material available/collected during the course of the investigation and the learned Magistrate after receipt of the charge-sheet without application of his judicial mind and without considering the backdrop which resulted in the initiation of the case against the petitioners, took cognizance of the offence it is alleged.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. The salient grounds taken by the petitioners in this application' under Section 482, CrPC to quash the order of cognizance are that there exists dispute of civil nature between the parties arising out of the partnership firm. The complainant-opposite party No. 2 since failed in his attempt to rope in petitioner . No. 1 in another criminal case which he had earlier initiated against him, he has come out with the frivolous complaint to wreck vengeance against the petitioners who are father and son and are in no way involved in the alleged offences.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. During the hearing of the petition and also on a perusal of the complaint/FIR and the case diary I come to find that the parties had admittedly started a real estate business and it is also admitted fact that there was a partnership deed executed by the parties to the said partnership firm on 1.8.1998 where this petitioner No. l Krushna Chandra Sahu, A. Ranga Rao, the complainant, Rajendra Kumar Sahu, Basudev Panda, Pravakar Sabat and Prafulla Kumar Sahu were the partners. On a scrutiny of the said partnership deed which contains many clauses regarding the function of the firm, share to be contributed, role which be played by each partner have been specifically mentioned in the said deed. In clause 18 there is specific mention that any dispute or difference arising amongst the partners with respect to the construction or interpretation of the deed or any other matter relating to the partnership affairs shall be referred to arbitration under the provisions of Indian Arbitration Act by appointing Arbitrator.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners argued that since undisputedly there is a partnership firm and the entire allegation of the complainant hinges round the said partnership business and when particularly there is a clause in the partnership deed that any dispute between the parties shall be referred to an Arbitrator by appointing one under the Arbitration Act, whose decision shall be final and binding on the parties to which all the partners including the complainant agreed, filing of a complaint petition on flimsy and false allegations against another partner and his son is totally unwarranted.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. Taking me into col.6 of the complaint petition of the complainant, learned Counsel for the petitioner pointed out that the alleged occurrence, according to the petitioner, took place on 5.2.2003 which has been mentioned in the said column. But in the said column it is also mentioned that the complainant lodged a report at Golanthara PS regarding the incident on 16.10.2002. He argued vehemently that this is itself is a glaring instance as to how the case is a false and frivolous one initiated to wreck vengeance and when the occurrence itself according to the complainant took place on 5.2.2003, report regarding such occurrence could not have been lodged at the police station on 16.10.2002. Learned counsel also took me through the statements of the other partners of the firm recorded by the I.O. under Section 161, CrPC., who have all stated that the complainant-opposite party No. 2 had dispute relating to the partnership firm with petitioner No. 1 Krushna Chandra Sahu for non-contribution of Rs. l lakh to the firm by complainant-opposite party No. 2. He further took me to the case diary wherein during the investigation of the case the I.O. has categorically mentioned that during the year 2002, due to misunderstanding that prevailed between the parties, the dispute arising out of the partnership firm and the contribution to the same the complainant-opposite party No. 2 reported on 17.10.2002 and 20.1.2003 and petitioner No. 1 Krushna Chandra Sahu had reported on 20.1.2003 and since the allegations related to the partnership firm and both had alleged against each other and no document could be produced to substantiate the allegations the police had made only station diary entries as the dispute was found to be civil nature. Apart from that, the parties became political rivals of each other during the Panchayat and Zilla Parishad elections, although earlier they belonged to one party. Lastly, it was submitted by learned Counsel for the petitioner that the entire episode which has been narrated in the complaint petition is the outcome of the partnership business and if the complainant had any grudge and any doubt regarding misappropriation of partnership fund by the accused petitioner No. l, he could have taken shelter in the appropriate forum by filing civil litigation. Without doing so, he has resorted to criminal prosecution on very flimsy-ground and not only that he has implicated the son of petitioner No. 1 who is an engineering student and prosecuting his study, he submitted.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. It is apparent on record that petitioner No. 1 is businessman and it is submitted by learned Counsel for the petitioner that he is an income tax assessee and the allegation that has been brought by the complainant in his complaint petition which was subsequently treated as FIR by order of learned Magistrate is that the petitioners obstructed the complainant on his way while he was proceeding in his motor-cycle, threatened him, dealt pushes and fist blows, criminally intimidated him and took away cash of Rs. 20,000/- from his pocket. On the face of all these earlier disputes between the parties allegations and counter allegations against each other and political rivalry and the other facts that I have discussed in the preceding paragraphs relating to. the report about this incident to the police even before it took place, makes the matter highly suspicious, rather improbable.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. Learned Addl. Standing Counsel appearing for the State submitted that enmity being, a double edged weapon and in the instant case when the police has submitted charge-sheet and the learned Magistrate has taken cognizance of the offence basing on the same, the order of cognizance should not be quashed as the truth or otherwise of the matter can be ascertained only after a legitimate trial of the petitioners in the Court of learned Magistrate. Learned counsel for the petitioner, on the other hand, relying on a decision reported in : 1992CriLJ527 (State of Haryana v. Ch. Bhajanlal and Ors.) submitted in the light of the said judgment that in the instant case, the FIR of the complainant, even it is taken on its face value and accepted in its entirety it does not constitute any offence or make out any case against the petitioners. He also submitted that the allegations in the complaint/FIR are so absurd and inherently improbable that on the basis of the same no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion. He vehemently urged that this criminal proceeding even manifestly attended with mala fide and the same is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wrecking vengeance on the accused-petitioners with a view to spite them due to private and personal grudge.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. On the admitted factual position and the constant rift between the parties which culminated out of partnership firm and subsequent political rivalry has given rise to this criminal case and the valid object behind this lame prosecution, the very nature of the material on which the structure of the prosecution rests are sufficient for this Court to quash the proceeding in the interest of justice as ends of justice are higher than the ends of mere law though justice has got to be administered according to the laws made by the Legislature. In my view, this is a fit case where the inherent power u/s 482, CrPC should be exercised to quash the proceeding as the entire prosecution case rests on false, frivolous and vexatious allegations and to allow continuance of the proceeding would be sheer misuse of the process of the Court.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. In the result, I quash the order of cognizance order dated 19.12.2003 in G.R. Case No. 23 of 2003 pending in the Court of J.M.F.C., Patrapur and so also the criminal proceeding.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">11. The Criminal Misc. Case is accordingly allowed.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '2005(II)OLR793',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'State of Orissa and anr.',
			'sub' => 'Criminal',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'krushna-chandra-sahu-vs-state-orissa',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '535665',
		(int) 1 => 'krushna-chandra-sahu-vs-state-orissa'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Krushna Chandra Sahu and anr Vs State of Orissa and anr - Citation 535665 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '535665',
		'acts' => 'Arbitration Act; <a href="/act/50902/code-of-criminal-procedure-1973-complete-act">Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1973</a> - Sections 156(3), 161 and 482; Indian Penal Code (IPC) - Sections 34, 323, 341, 392 and 506',
		'appealno' => 'Crl. Misc. Case No. 1814 of 2004',
		'appellant' => 'Krushna Chandra Sahu and anr.',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Krushna Chandra Sahu and anr. Vs. State of Orissa and anr.',
		'casenote' => 'Criminal - Cognizance - Quashing of - Section 156(3) of Code of Criminal Procedure,1973(Cr. PC) and Sections 34, 323, 341, 392 and 506 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) - Respondent and petitioners constituted partnership firm according - Petitioners misappropriated firm's money - Respondent approached police for lodging FIR against petitioners - Police refused to lodged FIR - Respondent filed complaint before Magistrate under Section 156(3) of Cr. P. C. - Magistrate allowed complaint and directed police to lodge FIR - Police officer lodged FIR against petitioners for commission of offence under Sections 341, 323, 392 and 506/34 of IPC and conducted investigation - On completion of investigation, police submitted charge sheet and Magistrate took cognizance of offence against petitioners - Hence, present writ petition filed seeking quashment of cognizance taken - Held, from facts and available material on record it established that respondent falsely implicated petitioners in present case due to dispute arose between them in relation to partnership firm running by them - Sufficient ground exist behind present lame prosecution and sufficient reasons and evidences exist to quash the same - Accordingly, writ petition allowed and order of cognizance quashed  - LABOUR & SERVICES 
Pay Scale:[Tarun Chatterjee & R.M. Lodha,JJ] Fixation - Orissa Service Code (1939), Rule 74(b)  Promotion - Government servant, by virtue of Rule 74(b), gets higher pay than what he was getting immediately before his promotion - Circular Dated 19.3.1983 modifying earlier Circular Dated 18.6.1982 resulting in  reduction of pay of employee on promotion  Held, It is not legal. Statutory Rules cannot be altered or amended by such Executive orders or Circulars or Instructions nor can they replace Statutory Rules.
 -  2 since failed in his attempt to rope in petitioner .No.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '(State of Haryana v. Ch. Bhajanlal and Ors.;',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => ' R.K. Nayak,;P.C. Jena
and;S.P. Dash, Advs.',
		'counseldef' => ' Addl. Standing Counsel for O.P. No. 1 and; R.K. Nanda, Adv. for O.P. No. 2',
		'court' => 'Orissa',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2005-10-07',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => ' A.K. Samantaray, J.',
		'judgement' => '<p>A.K. Samantaray, J.</p><p>1. In this Criminal Misc. Case under Section 482, Cr.P.C. the petitioners who are father and sort have prayed for quashing of the order of cognizance dated 19.12.2003 in G.R. Case No. 23 of 2003 passed by learned J.M.F.C.. Patrapur (GM). Learned Magistrate took cognizance of the offences under Sections 341, 323, 392, 506/34, IPC on the allegation of opposite party No. 2.</p><p>2. The prosecution case, as it appears from the complaint petition which was subsequently treated as FIR as per the direction of the learned Magistrate under Section 156(3), CrPC, in short is that the complainant-opposite party No. 2 A. Ranga Rao. petitioner No. 1 Krushna Chandra Sahu, Rajendra Kumar Sahu. Basudev Panda. Pravakar Sabat and Prafulla Kumar Sahu constituted a firm in the name and style of 'Madhupriya Estate'. They also executed a partnership deed on 1.8,1998 and according to the terms of the partnership deed they had to share the capital. It is alleged that petitioner No. 1 Krushna Chandra Sahu did not render any account, income and expenditure of the firm to the complainant-partner A. Ranga Rao, For this act of petitioner No. 1 the relationship between the complainant and the petitioner No. 1 soured. When the complainant insisted for rendering accounts petitioner No. 1 did not give the same and misappropriated the firm's money. It is also alleged that the complainant had reported the matter on 15.10.2002 at Golanthara PS, but the police did not take any action on the matter. It is also alleged in the complaint petition that on 5.2.2003 both the petitioner came in a Motor-cycle, rebuked the complainant, threatened him. dealt fist blows and took away cash of Rs. 20,000/- from his pocket when he was proceeding on the canal road towards Berhampur town. On these allegations a complaint petition was filed alleging further that the complainant had been to the police and the police called him 4-5 times, but ultimately did not take any action. The said complaint petition filed before the learned Magistrate on 17.2.2003 was registered as ICC No. 2/2003 and subsequently the learned Magistrate forwarded the complaint petition to the OIC. Golanthara PS to treat the same as FIR under Section 156(3). CrPC. and to proceed with the same in accordance with law. On receipt of the said complaint from the Court the Golanthara police treated the same as FIR, registered Golanthara PS case No. 98/ 2003 for the offence under Sections 341, 323, 392 and 506/34 IPC and proceeded with the investigation and on completion of the investigation submitted charge-sheet. Although there was no legal material available/collected during the course of the investigation and the learned Magistrate after receipt of the charge-sheet without application of his judicial mind and without considering the backdrop which resulted in the initiation of the case against the petitioners, took cognizance of the offence it is alleged.</p><p>3. The salient grounds taken by the petitioners in this application' under Section 482, CrPC to quash the order of cognizance are that there exists dispute of civil nature between the parties arising out of the partnership firm. The complainant-opposite party No. 2 since failed in his attempt to rope in petitioner . No. 1 in another criminal case which he had earlier initiated against him, he has come out with the frivolous complaint to wreck vengeance against the petitioners who are father and son and are in no way involved in the alleged offences.</p><p>4. During the hearing of the petition and also on a perusal of the complaint/FIR and the case diary I come to find that the parties had admittedly started a real estate business and it is also admitted fact that there was a partnership deed executed by the parties to the said partnership firm on 1.8.1998 where this petitioner No. l Krushna Chandra Sahu, A. Ranga Rao, the complainant, Rajendra Kumar Sahu, Basudev Panda, Pravakar Sabat and Prafulla Kumar Sahu were the partners. On a scrutiny of the said partnership deed which contains many clauses regarding the function of the firm, share to be contributed, role which be played by each partner have been specifically mentioned in the said deed. In clause 18 there is specific mention that any dispute or difference arising amongst the partners with respect to the construction or interpretation of the deed or any other matter relating to the partnership affairs shall be referred to arbitration under the provisions of Indian Arbitration Act by appointing Arbitrator.</p><p>5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners argued that since undisputedly there is a partnership firm and the entire allegation of the complainant hinges round the said partnership business and when particularly there is a clause in the partnership deed that any dispute between the parties shall be referred to an Arbitrator by appointing one under the Arbitration Act, whose decision shall be final and binding on the parties to which all the partners including the complainant agreed, filing of a complaint petition on flimsy and false allegations against another partner and his son is totally unwarranted.</p><p>6. Taking me into col.6 of the complaint petition of the complainant, learned Counsel for the petitioner pointed out that the alleged occurrence, according to the petitioner, took place on 5.2.2003 which has been mentioned in the said column. But in the said column it is also mentioned that the complainant lodged a report at Golanthara PS regarding the incident on 16.10.2002. He argued vehemently that this is itself is a glaring instance as to how the case is a false and frivolous one initiated to wreck vengeance and when the occurrence itself according to the complainant took place on 5.2.2003, report regarding such occurrence could not have been lodged at the police station on 16.10.2002. Learned counsel also took me through the statements of the other partners of the firm recorded by the I.O. under Section 161, CrPC., who have all stated that the complainant-opposite party No. 2 had dispute relating to the partnership firm with petitioner No. 1 Krushna Chandra Sahu for non-contribution of Rs. l lakh to the firm by complainant-opposite party No. 2. He further took me to the case diary wherein during the investigation of the case the I.O. has categorically mentioned that during the year 2002, due to misunderstanding that prevailed between the parties, the dispute arising out of the partnership firm and the contribution to the same the complainant-opposite party No. 2 reported on 17.10.2002 and 20.1.2003 and petitioner No. 1 Krushna Chandra Sahu had reported on 20.1.2003 and since the allegations related to the partnership firm and both had alleged against each other and no document could be produced to substantiate the allegations the police had made only station diary entries as the dispute was found to be civil nature. Apart from that, the parties became political rivals of each other during the Panchayat and Zilla Parishad elections, although earlier they belonged to one party. Lastly, it was submitted by learned Counsel for the petitioner that the entire episode which has been narrated in the complaint petition is the outcome of the partnership business and if the complainant had any grudge and any doubt regarding misappropriation of partnership fund by the accused petitioner No. l, he could have taken shelter in the appropriate forum by filing civil litigation. Without doing so, he has resorted to criminal prosecution on very flimsy-ground and not only that he has implicated the son of petitioner No. 1 who is an engineering student and prosecuting his study, he submitted.</p><p>7. It is apparent on record that petitioner No. 1 is businessman and it is submitted by learned Counsel for the petitioner that he is an income tax assessee and the allegation that has been brought by the complainant in his complaint petition which was subsequently treated as FIR by order of learned Magistrate is that the petitioners obstructed the complainant on his way while he was proceeding in his motor-cycle, threatened him, dealt pushes and fist blows, criminally intimidated him and took away cash of Rs. 20,000/- from his pocket. On the face of all these earlier disputes between the parties allegations and counter allegations against each other and political rivalry and the other facts that I have discussed in the preceding paragraphs relating to. the report about this incident to the police even before it took place, makes the matter highly suspicious, rather improbable.</p><p>8. Learned Addl. Standing Counsel appearing for the State submitted that enmity being, a double edged weapon and in the instant case when the police has submitted charge-sheet and the learned Magistrate has taken cognizance of the offence basing on the same, the order of cognizance should not be quashed as the truth or otherwise of the matter can be ascertained only after a legitimate trial of the petitioners in the Court of learned Magistrate. Learned counsel for the petitioner, on the other hand, relying on a decision reported in : 1992CriLJ527 (State of Haryana v. Ch. Bhajanlal and Ors.) submitted in the light of the said judgment that in the instant case, the FIR of the complainant, even it is taken on its face value and accepted in its entirety it does not constitute any offence or make out any case against the petitioners. He also submitted that the allegations in the complaint/FIR are so absurd and inherently improbable that on the basis of the same no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion. He vehemently urged that this criminal proceeding even manifestly attended with mala fide and the same is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wrecking vengeance on the accused-petitioners with a view to spite them due to private and personal grudge.</p><p>9. On the admitted factual position and the constant rift between the parties which culminated out of partnership firm and subsequent political rivalry has given rise to this criminal case and the valid object behind this lame prosecution, the very nature of the material on which the structure of the prosecution rests are sufficient for this Court to quash the proceeding in the interest of justice as ends of justice are higher than the ends of mere law though justice has got to be administered according to the laws made by the Legislature. In my view, this is a fit case where the inherent power u/s 482, CrPC should be exercised to quash the proceeding as the entire prosecution case rests on false, frivolous and vexatious allegations and to allow continuance of the proceeding would be sheer misuse of the process of the Court.</p><p>10. In the result, I quash the order of cognizance order dated 19.12.2003 in G.R. Case No. 23 of 2003 pending in the Court of J.M.F.C., Patrapur and so also the criminal proceeding.</p><p>11. The Criminal Misc. Case is accordingly allowed.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '2005(II)OLR793',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'State of Orissa and anr.',
		'sub' => 'Criminal',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'krushna-chandra-sahu-vs-state-orissa'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '535665',
	(int) 1 => 'krushna-chandra-sahu-vs-state-orissa'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/535665/krushna-chandra-sahu-vs-state-orissa'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$caseref = '(State of Haryana v. Ch. Bhajanlal and Ors.<br>'
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 120
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

criminal - cognizance - quashing of - section 156(3) of code of criminal procedure,1973(cr. pc) and sections 34, 323, 341, 392 and 506 of indian penal code, 1860 (ipc) - respondent and petitioners constituted partnership firm according - petitioners misappropriated firm's money - respondent approached police for lodging fir against petitioners - police refused to lodged fir - respondent filed complaint before magistrate under section 156(3) of cr. p. c. - magistrate allowed complaint and directed police to lodge fir - police officer lodged fir against petitioners for commission of offence under sections 341, 323, 392 and 506/34 of ipc and conducted investigation - on completion of investigation, police submitted charge sheet and magistrate took cognizance of offence against petitioners -.....

Notice (8): Undefined variable: kword [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 123]Code Context                                    }

                                //highest occurence of word in the judgement

                                echo $this->Wand->highlight($this->Excerpt->extractRelevant($kword,strtolower(strip_tags($desc['Judgement']['judgement']))), $query) . "</div>";
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Krushna Chandra Sahu and anr Vs State of Orissa and anr - Citation 535665 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '535665',
			'acts' => 'Arbitration Act; <a href="/act/50902/code-of-criminal-procedure-1973-complete-act">Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1973</a> - Sections 156(3), 161 and 482; Indian Penal Code (IPC) - Sections 34, 323, 341, 392 and 506',
			'appealno' => 'Crl. Misc. Case No. 1814 of 2004',
			'appellant' => 'Krushna Chandra Sahu and anr.',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Krushna Chandra Sahu and anr. Vs. State of Orissa and anr.',
			'casenote' => 'Criminal - Cognizance - Quashing of - Section 156(3) of Code of Criminal Procedure,1973(Cr. PC) and Sections 34, 323, 341, 392 and 506 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) - Respondent and petitioners constituted partnership firm according - Petitioners misappropriated firm's money - Respondent approached police for lodging FIR against petitioners - Police refused to lodged FIR - Respondent filed complaint before Magistrate under Section 156(3) of Cr. P. C. - Magistrate allowed complaint and directed police to lodge FIR - Police officer lodged FIR against petitioners for commission of offence under Sections 341, 323, 392 and 506/34 of IPC and conducted investigation - On completion of investigation, police submitted charge sheet and Magistrate took cognizance of offence against petitioners - Hence, present writ petition filed seeking quashment of cognizance taken - Held, from facts and available material on record it established that respondent falsely implicated petitioners in present case due to dispute arose between them in relation to partnership firm running by them - Sufficient ground exist behind present lame prosecution and sufficient reasons and evidences exist to quash the same - Accordingly, writ petition allowed and order of cognizance quashed  - LABOUR & SERVICES 
Pay Scale:[Tarun Chatterjee & R.M. Lodha,JJ] Fixation - Orissa Service Code (1939), Rule 74(b)  Promotion - Government servant, by virtue of Rule 74(b), gets higher pay than what he was getting immediately before his promotion - Circular Dated 19.3.1983 modifying earlier Circular Dated 18.6.1982 resulting in  reduction of pay of employee on promotion  Held, It is not legal. Statutory Rules cannot be altered or amended by such Executive orders or Circulars or Instructions nor can they replace Statutory Rules.
 -  2 since failed in his attempt to rope in petitioner .No.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '(State of Haryana v. Ch. Bhajanlal and Ors.;',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => ' R.K. Nayak,;P.C. Jena
and;S.P. Dash, Advs.',
			'counseldef' => ' Addl. Standing Counsel for O.P. No. 1 and; R.K. Nanda, Adv. for O.P. No. 2',
			'court' => 'Orissa',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2005-10-07',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => ' A.K. Samantaray, J.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">A.K. Samantaray, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. In this Criminal Misc. Case under Section 482, Cr.P.C. the petitioners who are father and sort have prayed for quashing of the order of cognizance dated 19.12.2003 in G.R. Case No. 23 of 2003 passed by learned J.M.F.C.. Patrapur (GM). Learned Magistrate took cognizance of the offences under Sections 341, 323, 392, 506/34, IPC on the allegation of opposite party No. 2.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The prosecution case, as it appears from the complaint petition which was subsequently treated as FIR as per the direction of the learned Magistrate under Section 156(3), CrPC, in short is that the complainant-opposite party No. 2 A. Ranga Rao. petitioner No. 1 Krushna Chandra Sahu, Rajendra Kumar Sahu. Basudev Panda. Pravakar Sabat and Prafulla Kumar Sahu constituted a firm in the name and style of 'Madhupriya Estate'. They also executed a partnership deed on 1.8,1998 and according to the terms of the partnership deed they had to share the capital. It is alleged that petitioner No. 1 Krushna Chandra Sahu did not render any account, income and expenditure of the firm to the complainant-partner A. Ranga Rao, For this act of petitioner No. 1 the relationship between the complainant and the petitioner No. 1 soured. When the complainant insisted for rendering accounts petitioner No. 1 did not give the same and misappropriated the firm's money. It is also alleged that the complainant had reported the matter on 15.10.2002 at Golanthara PS, but the police did not take any action on the matter. It is also alleged in the complaint petition that on 5.2.2003 both the petitioner came in a Motor-cycle, rebuked the complainant, threatened him. dealt fist blows and took away cash of Rs. 20,000/- from his pocket when he was proceeding on the canal road towards Berhampur town. On these allegations a complaint petition was filed alleging further that the complainant had been to the police and the police called him 4-5 times, but ultimately did not take any action. The said complaint petition filed before the learned Magistrate on 17.2.2003 was registered as ICC No. 2/2003 and subsequently the learned Magistrate forwarded the complaint petition to the OIC. Golanthara PS to treat the same as FIR under Section 156(3). CrPC. and to proceed with the same in accordance with law. On receipt of the said complaint from the Court the Golanthara police treated the same as FIR, registered Golanthara PS case No. 98/ 2003 for the offence under Sections 341, 323, 392 and 506/34 IPC and proceeded with the investigation and on completion of the investigation submitted charge-sheet. Although there was no legal material available/collected during the course of the investigation and the learned Magistrate after receipt of the charge-sheet without application of his judicial mind and without considering the backdrop which resulted in the initiation of the case against the petitioners, took cognizance of the offence it is alleged.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. The salient grounds taken by the petitioners in this application' under Section 482, CrPC to quash the order of cognizance are that there exists dispute of civil nature between the parties arising out of the partnership firm. The complainant-opposite party No. 2 since failed in his attempt to rope in petitioner . No. 1 in another criminal case which he had earlier initiated against him, he has come out with the frivolous complaint to wreck vengeance against the petitioners who are father and son and are in no way involved in the alleged offences.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. During the hearing of the petition and also on a perusal of the complaint/FIR and the case diary I come to find that the parties had admittedly started a real estate business and it is also admitted fact that there was a partnership deed executed by the parties to the said partnership firm on 1.8.1998 where this petitioner No. l Krushna Chandra Sahu, A. Ranga Rao, the complainant, Rajendra Kumar Sahu, Basudev Panda, Pravakar Sabat and Prafulla Kumar Sahu were the partners. On a scrutiny of the said partnership deed which contains many clauses regarding the function of the firm, share to be contributed, role which be played by each partner have been specifically mentioned in the said deed. In clause 18 there is specific mention that any dispute or difference arising amongst the partners with respect to the construction or interpretation of the deed or any other matter relating to the partnership affairs shall be referred to arbitration under the provisions of Indian Arbitration Act by appointing Arbitrator.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners argued that since undisputedly there is a partnership firm and the entire allegation of the complainant hinges round the said partnership business and when particularly there is a clause in the partnership deed that any dispute between the parties shall be referred to an Arbitrator by appointing one under the Arbitration Act, whose decision shall be final and binding on the parties to which all the partners including the complainant agreed, filing of a complaint petition on flimsy and false allegations against another partner and his son is totally unwarranted.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. Taking me into col.6 of the complaint petition of the complainant, learned Counsel for the petitioner pointed out that the alleged occurrence, according to the petitioner, took place on 5.2.2003 which has been mentioned in the said column. But in the said column it is also mentioned that the complainant lodged a report at Golanthara PS regarding the incident on 16.10.2002. He argued vehemently that this is itself is a glaring instance as to how the case is a false and frivolous one initiated to wreck vengeance and when the occurrence itself according to the complainant took place on 5.2.2003, report regarding such occurrence could not have been lodged at the police station on 16.10.2002. Learned counsel also took me through the statements of the other partners of the firm recorded by the I.O. under Section 161, CrPC., who have all stated that the complainant-opposite party No. 2 had dispute relating to the partnership firm with petitioner No. 1 Krushna Chandra Sahu for non-contribution of Rs. l lakh to the firm by complainant-opposite party No. 2. He further took me to the case diary wherein during the investigation of the case the I.O. has categorically mentioned that during the year 2002, due to misunderstanding that prevailed between the parties, the dispute arising out of the partnership firm and the contribution to the same the complainant-opposite party No. 2 reported on 17.10.2002 and 20.1.2003 and petitioner No. 1 Krushna Chandra Sahu had reported on 20.1.2003 and since the allegations related to the partnership firm and both had alleged against each other and no document could be produced to substantiate the allegations the police had made only station diary entries as the dispute was found to be civil nature. Apart from that, the parties became political rivals of each other during the Panchayat and Zilla Parishad elections, although earlier they belonged to one party. Lastly, it was submitted by learned Counsel for the petitioner that the entire episode which has been narrated in the complaint petition is the outcome of the partnership business and if the complainant had any grudge and any doubt regarding misappropriation of partnership fund by the accused petitioner No. l, he could have taken shelter in the appropriate forum by filing civil litigation. Without doing so, he has resorted to criminal prosecution on very flimsy-ground and not only that he has implicated the son of petitioner No. 1 who is an engineering student and prosecuting his study, he submitted.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. It is apparent on record that petitioner No. 1 is businessman and it is submitted by learned Counsel for the petitioner that he is an income tax assessee and the allegation that has been brought by the complainant in his complaint petition which was subsequently treated as FIR by order of learned Magistrate is that the petitioners obstructed the complainant on his way while he was proceeding in his motor-cycle, threatened him, dealt pushes and fist blows, criminally intimidated him and took away cash of Rs. 20,000/- from his pocket. On the face of all these earlier disputes between the parties allegations and counter allegations against each other and political rivalry and the other facts that I have discussed in the preceding paragraphs relating to. the report about this incident to the police even before it took place, makes the matter highly suspicious, rather improbable.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. Learned Addl. Standing Counsel appearing for the State submitted that enmity being, a double edged weapon and in the instant case when the police has submitted charge-sheet and the learned Magistrate has taken cognizance of the offence basing on the same, the order of cognizance should not be quashed as the truth or otherwise of the matter can be ascertained only after a legitimate trial of the petitioners in the Court of learned Magistrate. Learned counsel for the petitioner, on the other hand, relying on a decision reported in : 1992CriLJ527 (State of Haryana v. Ch. Bhajanlal and Ors.) submitted in the light of the said judgment that in the instant case, the FIR of the complainant, even it is taken on its face value and accepted in its entirety it does not constitute any offence or make out any case against the petitioners. He also submitted that the allegations in the complaint/FIR are so absurd and inherently improbable that on the basis of the same no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion. He vehemently urged that this criminal proceeding even manifestly attended with mala fide and the same is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wrecking vengeance on the accused-petitioners with a view to spite them due to private and personal grudge.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. On the admitted factual position and the constant rift between the parties which culminated out of partnership firm and subsequent political rivalry has given rise to this criminal case and the valid object behind this lame prosecution, the very nature of the material on which the structure of the prosecution rests are sufficient for this Court to quash the proceeding in the interest of justice as ends of justice are higher than the ends of mere law though justice has got to be administered according to the laws made by the Legislature. In my view, this is a fit case where the inherent power u/s 482, CrPC should be exercised to quash the proceeding as the entire prosecution case rests on false, frivolous and vexatious allegations and to allow continuance of the proceeding would be sheer misuse of the process of the Court.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. In the result, I quash the order of cognizance order dated 19.12.2003 in G.R. Case No. 23 of 2003 pending in the Court of J.M.F.C., Patrapur and so also the criminal proceeding.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">11. The Criminal Misc. Case is accordingly allowed.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '2005(II)OLR793',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'State of Orissa and anr.',
			'sub' => 'Criminal',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'krushna-chandra-sahu-vs-state-orissa',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '535665',
		(int) 1 => 'krushna-chandra-sahu-vs-state-orissa'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Krushna Chandra Sahu and anr Vs State of Orissa and anr - Citation 535665 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '535665',
		'acts' => 'Arbitration Act; <a href="/act/50902/code-of-criminal-procedure-1973-complete-act">Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1973</a> - Sections 156(3), 161 and 482; Indian Penal Code (IPC) - Sections 34, 323, 341, 392 and 506',
		'appealno' => 'Crl. Misc. Case No. 1814 of 2004',
		'appellant' => 'Krushna Chandra Sahu and anr.',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Krushna Chandra Sahu and anr. Vs. State of Orissa and anr.',
		'casenote' => 'Criminal - Cognizance - Quashing of - Section 156(3) of Code of Criminal Procedure,1973(Cr. PC) and Sections 34, 323, 341, 392 and 506 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) - Respondent and petitioners constituted partnership firm according - Petitioners misappropriated firm's money - Respondent approached police for lodging FIR against petitioners - Police refused to lodged FIR - Respondent filed complaint before Magistrate under Section 156(3) of Cr. P. C. - Magistrate allowed complaint and directed police to lodge FIR - Police officer lodged FIR against petitioners for commission of offence under Sections 341, 323, 392 and 506/34 of IPC and conducted investigation - On completion of investigation, police submitted charge sheet and Magistrate took cognizance of offence against petitioners - Hence, present writ petition filed seeking quashment of cognizance taken - Held, from facts and available material on record it established that respondent falsely implicated petitioners in present case due to dispute arose between them in relation to partnership firm running by them - Sufficient ground exist behind present lame prosecution and sufficient reasons and evidences exist to quash the same - Accordingly, writ petition allowed and order of cognizance quashed  - LABOUR & SERVICES 
Pay Scale:[Tarun Chatterjee & R.M. Lodha,JJ] Fixation - Orissa Service Code (1939), Rule 74(b)  Promotion - Government servant, by virtue of Rule 74(b), gets higher pay than what he was getting immediately before his promotion - Circular Dated 19.3.1983 modifying earlier Circular Dated 18.6.1982 resulting in  reduction of pay of employee on promotion  Held, It is not legal. Statutory Rules cannot be altered or amended by such Executive orders or Circulars or Instructions nor can they replace Statutory Rules.
 -  2 since failed in his attempt to rope in petitioner .No.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '(State of Haryana v. Ch. Bhajanlal and Ors.;',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => ' R.K. Nayak,;P.C. Jena
and;S.P. Dash, Advs.',
		'counseldef' => ' Addl. Standing Counsel for O.P. No. 1 and; R.K. Nanda, Adv. for O.P. No. 2',
		'court' => 'Orissa',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2005-10-07',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => ' A.K. Samantaray, J.',
		'judgement' => '<p>A.K. Samantaray, J.</p><p>1. In this Criminal Misc. Case under Section 482, Cr.P.C. the petitioners who are father and sort have prayed for quashing of the order of cognizance dated 19.12.2003 in G.R. Case No. 23 of 2003 passed by learned J.M.F.C.. Patrapur (GM). Learned Magistrate took cognizance of the offences under Sections 341, 323, 392, 506/34, IPC on the allegation of opposite party No. 2.</p><p>2. The prosecution case, as it appears from the complaint petition which was subsequently treated as FIR as per the direction of the learned Magistrate under Section 156(3), CrPC, in short is that the complainant-opposite party No. 2 A. Ranga Rao. petitioner No. 1 Krushna Chandra Sahu, Rajendra Kumar Sahu. Basudev Panda. Pravakar Sabat and Prafulla Kumar Sahu constituted a firm in the name and style of 'Madhupriya Estate'. They also executed a partnership deed on 1.8,1998 and according to the terms of the partnership deed they had to share the capital. It is alleged that petitioner No. 1 Krushna Chandra Sahu did not render any account, income and expenditure of the firm to the complainant-partner A. Ranga Rao, For this act of petitioner No. 1 the relationship between the complainant and the petitioner No. 1 soured. When the complainant insisted for rendering accounts petitioner No. 1 did not give the same and misappropriated the firm's money. It is also alleged that the complainant had reported the matter on 15.10.2002 at Golanthara PS, but the police did not take any action on the matter. It is also alleged in the complaint petition that on 5.2.2003 both the petitioner came in a Motor-cycle, rebuked the complainant, threatened him. dealt fist blows and took away cash of Rs. 20,000/- from his pocket when he was proceeding on the canal road towards Berhampur town. On these allegations a complaint petition was filed alleging further that the complainant had been to the police and the police called him 4-5 times, but ultimately did not take any action. The said complaint petition filed before the learned Magistrate on 17.2.2003 was registered as ICC No. 2/2003 and subsequently the learned Magistrate forwarded the complaint petition to the OIC. Golanthara PS to treat the same as FIR under Section 156(3). CrPC. and to proceed with the same in accordance with law. On receipt of the said complaint from the Court the Golanthara police treated the same as FIR, registered Golanthara PS case No. 98/ 2003 for the offence under Sections 341, 323, 392 and 506/34 IPC and proceeded with the investigation and on completion of the investigation submitted charge-sheet. Although there was no legal material available/collected during the course of the investigation and the learned Magistrate after receipt of the charge-sheet without application of his judicial mind and without considering the backdrop which resulted in the initiation of the case against the petitioners, took cognizance of the offence it is alleged.</p><p>3. The salient grounds taken by the petitioners in this application' under Section 482, CrPC to quash the order of cognizance are that there exists dispute of civil nature between the parties arising out of the partnership firm. The complainant-opposite party No. 2 since failed in his attempt to rope in petitioner . No. 1 in another criminal case which he had earlier initiated against him, he has come out with the frivolous complaint to wreck vengeance against the petitioners who are father and son and are in no way involved in the alleged offences.</p><p>4. During the hearing of the petition and also on a perusal of the complaint/FIR and the case diary I come to find that the parties had admittedly started a real estate business and it is also admitted fact that there was a partnership deed executed by the parties to the said partnership firm on 1.8.1998 where this petitioner No. l Krushna Chandra Sahu, A. Ranga Rao, the complainant, Rajendra Kumar Sahu, Basudev Panda, Pravakar Sabat and Prafulla Kumar Sahu were the partners. On a scrutiny of the said partnership deed which contains many clauses regarding the function of the firm, share to be contributed, role which be played by each partner have been specifically mentioned in the said deed. In clause 18 there is specific mention that any dispute or difference arising amongst the partners with respect to the construction or interpretation of the deed or any other matter relating to the partnership affairs shall be referred to arbitration under the provisions of Indian Arbitration Act by appointing Arbitrator.</p><p>5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners argued that since undisputedly there is a partnership firm and the entire allegation of the complainant hinges round the said partnership business and when particularly there is a clause in the partnership deed that any dispute between the parties shall be referred to an Arbitrator by appointing one under the Arbitration Act, whose decision shall be final and binding on the parties to which all the partners including the complainant agreed, filing of a complaint petition on flimsy and false allegations against another partner and his son is totally unwarranted.</p><p>6. Taking me into col.6 of the complaint petition of the complainant, learned Counsel for the petitioner pointed out that the alleged occurrence, according to the petitioner, took place on 5.2.2003 which has been mentioned in the said column. But in the said column it is also mentioned that the complainant lodged a report at Golanthara PS regarding the incident on 16.10.2002. He argued vehemently that this is itself is a glaring instance as to how the case is a false and frivolous one initiated to wreck vengeance and when the occurrence itself according to the complainant took place on 5.2.2003, report regarding such occurrence could not have been lodged at the police station on 16.10.2002. Learned counsel also took me through the statements of the other partners of the firm recorded by the I.O. under Section 161, CrPC., who have all stated that the complainant-opposite party No. 2 had dispute relating to the partnership firm with petitioner No. 1 Krushna Chandra Sahu for non-contribution of Rs. l lakh to the firm by complainant-opposite party No. 2. He further took me to the case diary wherein during the investigation of the case the I.O. has categorically mentioned that during the year 2002, due to misunderstanding that prevailed between the parties, the dispute arising out of the partnership firm and the contribution to the same the complainant-opposite party No. 2 reported on 17.10.2002 and 20.1.2003 and petitioner No. 1 Krushna Chandra Sahu had reported on 20.1.2003 and since the allegations related to the partnership firm and both had alleged against each other and no document could be produced to substantiate the allegations the police had made only station diary entries as the dispute was found to be civil nature. Apart from that, the parties became political rivals of each other during the Panchayat and Zilla Parishad elections, although earlier they belonged to one party. Lastly, it was submitted by learned Counsel for the petitioner that the entire episode which has been narrated in the complaint petition is the outcome of the partnership business and if the complainant had any grudge and any doubt regarding misappropriation of partnership fund by the accused petitioner No. l, he could have taken shelter in the appropriate forum by filing civil litigation. Without doing so, he has resorted to criminal prosecution on very flimsy-ground and not only that he has implicated the son of petitioner No. 1 who is an engineering student and prosecuting his study, he submitted.</p><p>7. It is apparent on record that petitioner No. 1 is businessman and it is submitted by learned Counsel for the petitioner that he is an income tax assessee and the allegation that has been brought by the complainant in his complaint petition which was subsequently treated as FIR by order of learned Magistrate is that the petitioners obstructed the complainant on his way while he was proceeding in his motor-cycle, threatened him, dealt pushes and fist blows, criminally intimidated him and took away cash of Rs. 20,000/- from his pocket. On the face of all these earlier disputes between the parties allegations and counter allegations against each other and political rivalry and the other facts that I have discussed in the preceding paragraphs relating to. the report about this incident to the police even before it took place, makes the matter highly suspicious, rather improbable.</p><p>8. Learned Addl. Standing Counsel appearing for the State submitted that enmity being, a double edged weapon and in the instant case when the police has submitted charge-sheet and the learned Magistrate has taken cognizance of the offence basing on the same, the order of cognizance should not be quashed as the truth or otherwise of the matter can be ascertained only after a legitimate trial of the petitioners in the Court of learned Magistrate. Learned counsel for the petitioner, on the other hand, relying on a decision reported in : 1992CriLJ527 (State of Haryana v. Ch. Bhajanlal and Ors.) submitted in the light of the said judgment that in the instant case, the FIR of the complainant, even it is taken on its face value and accepted in its entirety it does not constitute any offence or make out any case against the petitioners. He also submitted that the allegations in the complaint/FIR are so absurd and inherently improbable that on the basis of the same no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion. He vehemently urged that this criminal proceeding even manifestly attended with mala fide and the same is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wrecking vengeance on the accused-petitioners with a view to spite them due to private and personal grudge.</p><p>9. On the admitted factual position and the constant rift between the parties which culminated out of partnership firm and subsequent political rivalry has given rise to this criminal case and the valid object behind this lame prosecution, the very nature of the material on which the structure of the prosecution rests are sufficient for this Court to quash the proceeding in the interest of justice as ends of justice are higher than the ends of mere law though justice has got to be administered according to the laws made by the Legislature. In my view, this is a fit case where the inherent power u/s 482, CrPC should be exercised to quash the proceeding as the entire prosecution case rests on false, frivolous and vexatious allegations and to allow continuance of the proceeding would be sheer misuse of the process of the Court.</p><p>10. In the result, I quash the order of cognizance order dated 19.12.2003 in G.R. Case No. 23 of 2003 pending in the Court of J.M.F.C., Patrapur and so also the criminal proceeding.</p><p>11. The Criminal Misc. Case is accordingly allowed.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '2005(II)OLR793',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'State of Orissa and anr.',
		'sub' => 'Criminal',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'krushna-chandra-sahu-vs-state-orissa'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '535665',
	(int) 1 => 'krushna-chandra-sahu-vs-state-orissa'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/535665/krushna-chandra-sahu-vs-state-orissa'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$caseref = '(State of Haryana v. Ch. Bhajanlal and Ors.<br>'
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 123
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 123]Code Context                                    }

                                //highest occurence of word in the judgement

                                echo $this->Wand->highlight($this->Excerpt->extractRelevant($kword,strtolower(strip_tags($desc['Judgement']['judgement']))), $query) . "</div>";
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Krushna Chandra Sahu and anr Vs State of Orissa and anr - Citation 535665 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '535665',
			'acts' => 'Arbitration Act; <a href="/act/50902/code-of-criminal-procedure-1973-complete-act">Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1973</a> - Sections 156(3), 161 and 482; Indian Penal Code (IPC) - Sections 34, 323, 341, 392 and 506',
			'appealno' => 'Crl. Misc. Case No. 1814 of 2004',
			'appellant' => 'Krushna Chandra Sahu and anr.',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Krushna Chandra Sahu and anr. Vs. State of Orissa and anr.',
			'casenote' => 'Criminal - Cognizance - Quashing of - Section 156(3) of Code of Criminal Procedure,1973(Cr. PC) and Sections 34, 323, 341, 392 and 506 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) - Respondent and petitioners constituted partnership firm according - Petitioners misappropriated firm's money - Respondent approached police for lodging FIR against petitioners - Police refused to lodged FIR - Respondent filed complaint before Magistrate under Section 156(3) of Cr. P. C. - Magistrate allowed complaint and directed police to lodge FIR - Police officer lodged FIR against petitioners for commission of offence under Sections 341, 323, 392 and 506/34 of IPC and conducted investigation - On completion of investigation, police submitted charge sheet and Magistrate took cognizance of offence against petitioners - Hence, present writ petition filed seeking quashment of cognizance taken - Held, from facts and available material on record it established that respondent falsely implicated petitioners in present case due to dispute arose between them in relation to partnership firm running by them - Sufficient ground exist behind present lame prosecution and sufficient reasons and evidences exist to quash the same - Accordingly, writ petition allowed and order of cognizance quashed  - LABOUR & SERVICES 
Pay Scale:[Tarun Chatterjee & R.M. Lodha,JJ] Fixation - Orissa Service Code (1939), Rule 74(b)  Promotion - Government servant, by virtue of Rule 74(b), gets higher pay than what he was getting immediately before his promotion - Circular Dated 19.3.1983 modifying earlier Circular Dated 18.6.1982 resulting in  reduction of pay of employee on promotion  Held, It is not legal. Statutory Rules cannot be altered or amended by such Executive orders or Circulars or Instructions nor can they replace Statutory Rules.
 -  2 since failed in his attempt to rope in petitioner .No.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '(State of Haryana v. Ch. Bhajanlal and Ors.;',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => ' R.K. Nayak,;P.C. Jena
and;S.P. Dash, Advs.',
			'counseldef' => ' Addl. Standing Counsel for O.P. No. 1 and; R.K. Nanda, Adv. for O.P. No. 2',
			'court' => 'Orissa',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2005-10-07',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => ' A.K. Samantaray, J.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">A.K. Samantaray, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. In this Criminal Misc. Case under Section 482, Cr.P.C. the petitioners who are father and sort have prayed for quashing of the order of cognizance dated 19.12.2003 in G.R. Case No. 23 of 2003 passed by learned J.M.F.C.. Patrapur (GM). Learned Magistrate took cognizance of the offences under Sections 341, 323, 392, 506/34, IPC on the allegation of opposite party No. 2.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The prosecution case, as it appears from the complaint petition which was subsequently treated as FIR as per the direction of the learned Magistrate under Section 156(3), CrPC, in short is that the complainant-opposite party No. 2 A. Ranga Rao. petitioner No. 1 Krushna Chandra Sahu, Rajendra Kumar Sahu. Basudev Panda. Pravakar Sabat and Prafulla Kumar Sahu constituted a firm in the name and style of 'Madhupriya Estate'. They also executed a partnership deed on 1.8,1998 and according to the terms of the partnership deed they had to share the capital. It is alleged that petitioner No. 1 Krushna Chandra Sahu did not render any account, income and expenditure of the firm to the complainant-partner A. Ranga Rao, For this act of petitioner No. 1 the relationship between the complainant and the petitioner No. 1 soured. When the complainant insisted for rendering accounts petitioner No. 1 did not give the same and misappropriated the firm's money. It is also alleged that the complainant had reported the matter on 15.10.2002 at Golanthara PS, but the police did not take any action on the matter. It is also alleged in the complaint petition that on 5.2.2003 both the petitioner came in a Motor-cycle, rebuked the complainant, threatened him. dealt fist blows and took away cash of Rs. 20,000/- from his pocket when he was proceeding on the canal road towards Berhampur town. On these allegations a complaint petition was filed alleging further that the complainant had been to the police and the police called him 4-5 times, but ultimately did not take any action. The said complaint petition filed before the learned Magistrate on 17.2.2003 was registered as ICC No. 2/2003 and subsequently the learned Magistrate forwarded the complaint petition to the OIC. Golanthara PS to treat the same as FIR under Section 156(3). CrPC. and to proceed with the same in accordance with law. On receipt of the said complaint from the Court the Golanthara police treated the same as FIR, registered Golanthara PS case No. 98/ 2003 for the offence under Sections 341, 323, 392 and 506/34 IPC and proceeded with the investigation and on completion of the investigation submitted charge-sheet. Although there was no legal material available/collected during the course of the investigation and the learned Magistrate after receipt of the charge-sheet without application of his judicial mind and without considering the backdrop which resulted in the initiation of the case against the petitioners, took cognizance of the offence it is alleged.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. The salient grounds taken by the petitioners in this application' under Section 482, CrPC to quash the order of cognizance are that there exists dispute of civil nature between the parties arising out of the partnership firm. The complainant-opposite party No. 2 since failed in his attempt to rope in petitioner . No. 1 in another criminal case which he had earlier initiated against him, he has come out with the frivolous complaint to wreck vengeance against the petitioners who are father and son and are in no way involved in the alleged offences.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. During the hearing of the petition and also on a perusal of the complaint/FIR and the case diary I come to find that the parties had admittedly started a real estate business and it is also admitted fact that there was a partnership deed executed by the parties to the said partnership firm on 1.8.1998 where this petitioner No. l Krushna Chandra Sahu, A. Ranga Rao, the complainant, Rajendra Kumar Sahu, Basudev Panda, Pravakar Sabat and Prafulla Kumar Sahu were the partners. On a scrutiny of the said partnership deed which contains many clauses regarding the function of the firm, share to be contributed, role which be played by each partner have been specifically mentioned in the said deed. In clause 18 there is specific mention that any dispute or difference arising amongst the partners with respect to the construction or interpretation of the deed or any other matter relating to the partnership affairs shall be referred to arbitration under the provisions of Indian Arbitration Act by appointing Arbitrator.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners argued that since undisputedly there is a partnership firm and the entire allegation of the complainant hinges round the said partnership business and when particularly there is a clause in the partnership deed that any dispute between the parties shall be referred to an Arbitrator by appointing one under the Arbitration Act, whose decision shall be final and binding on the parties to which all the partners including the complainant agreed, filing of a complaint petition on flimsy and false allegations against another partner and his son is totally unwarranted.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. Taking me into col.6 of the complaint petition of the complainant, learned Counsel for the petitioner pointed out that the alleged occurrence, according to the petitioner, took place on 5.2.2003 which has been mentioned in the said column. But in the said column it is also mentioned that the complainant lodged a report at Golanthara PS regarding the incident on 16.10.2002. He argued vehemently that this is itself is a glaring instance as to how the case is a false and frivolous one initiated to wreck vengeance and when the occurrence itself according to the complainant took place on 5.2.2003, report regarding such occurrence could not have been lodged at the police station on 16.10.2002. Learned counsel also took me through the statements of the other partners of the firm recorded by the I.O. under Section 161, CrPC., who have all stated that the complainant-opposite party No. 2 had dispute relating to the partnership firm with petitioner No. 1 Krushna Chandra Sahu for non-contribution of Rs. l lakh to the firm by complainant-opposite party No. 2. He further took me to the case diary wherein during the investigation of the case the I.O. has categorically mentioned that during the year 2002, due to misunderstanding that prevailed between the parties, the dispute arising out of the partnership firm and the contribution to the same the complainant-opposite party No. 2 reported on 17.10.2002 and 20.1.2003 and petitioner No. 1 Krushna Chandra Sahu had reported on 20.1.2003 and since the allegations related to the partnership firm and both had alleged against each other and no document could be produced to substantiate the allegations the police had made only station diary entries as the dispute was found to be civil nature. Apart from that, the parties became political rivals of each other during the Panchayat and Zilla Parishad elections, although earlier they belonged to one party. Lastly, it was submitted by learned Counsel for the petitioner that the entire episode which has been narrated in the complaint petition is the outcome of the partnership business and if the complainant had any grudge and any doubt regarding misappropriation of partnership fund by the accused petitioner No. l, he could have taken shelter in the appropriate forum by filing civil litigation. Without doing so, he has resorted to criminal prosecution on very flimsy-ground and not only that he has implicated the son of petitioner No. 1 who is an engineering student and prosecuting his study, he submitted.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. It is apparent on record that petitioner No. 1 is businessman and it is submitted by learned Counsel for the petitioner that he is an income tax assessee and the allegation that has been brought by the complainant in his complaint petition which was subsequently treated as FIR by order of learned Magistrate is that the petitioners obstructed the complainant on his way while he was proceeding in his motor-cycle, threatened him, dealt pushes and fist blows, criminally intimidated him and took away cash of Rs. 20,000/- from his pocket. On the face of all these earlier disputes between the parties allegations and counter allegations against each other and political rivalry and the other facts that I have discussed in the preceding paragraphs relating to. the report about this incident to the police even before it took place, makes the matter highly suspicious, rather improbable.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. Learned Addl. Standing Counsel appearing for the State submitted that enmity being, a double edged weapon and in the instant case when the police has submitted charge-sheet and the learned Magistrate has taken cognizance of the offence basing on the same, the order of cognizance should not be quashed as the truth or otherwise of the matter can be ascertained only after a legitimate trial of the petitioners in the Court of learned Magistrate. Learned counsel for the petitioner, on the other hand, relying on a decision reported in : 1992CriLJ527 (State of Haryana v. Ch. Bhajanlal and Ors.) submitted in the light of the said judgment that in the instant case, the FIR of the complainant, even it is taken on its face value and accepted in its entirety it does not constitute any offence or make out any case against the petitioners. He also submitted that the allegations in the complaint/FIR are so absurd and inherently improbable that on the basis of the same no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion. He vehemently urged that this criminal proceeding even manifestly attended with mala fide and the same is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wrecking vengeance on the accused-petitioners with a view to spite them due to private and personal grudge.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. On the admitted factual position and the constant rift between the parties which culminated out of partnership firm and subsequent political rivalry has given rise to this criminal case and the valid object behind this lame prosecution, the very nature of the material on which the structure of the prosecution rests are sufficient for this Court to quash the proceeding in the interest of justice as ends of justice are higher than the ends of mere law though justice has got to be administered according to the laws made by the Legislature. In my view, this is a fit case where the inherent power u/s 482, CrPC should be exercised to quash the proceeding as the entire prosecution case rests on false, frivolous and vexatious allegations and to allow continuance of the proceeding would be sheer misuse of the process of the Court.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. In the result, I quash the order of cognizance order dated 19.12.2003 in G.R. Case No. 23 of 2003 pending in the Court of J.M.F.C., Patrapur and so also the criminal proceeding.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">11. The Criminal Misc. Case is accordingly allowed.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '2005(II)OLR793',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'State of Orissa and anr.',
			'sub' => 'Criminal',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'krushna-chandra-sahu-vs-state-orissa',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '535665',
		(int) 1 => 'krushna-chandra-sahu-vs-state-orissa'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Krushna Chandra Sahu and anr Vs State of Orissa and anr - Citation 535665 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '535665',
		'acts' => 'Arbitration Act; <a href="/act/50902/code-of-criminal-procedure-1973-complete-act">Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1973</a> - Sections 156(3), 161 and 482; Indian Penal Code (IPC) - Sections 34, 323, 341, 392 and 506',
		'appealno' => 'Crl. Misc. Case No. 1814 of 2004',
		'appellant' => 'Krushna Chandra Sahu and anr.',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Krushna Chandra Sahu and anr. Vs. State of Orissa and anr.',
		'casenote' => 'Criminal - Cognizance - Quashing of - Section 156(3) of Code of Criminal Procedure,1973(Cr. PC) and Sections 34, 323, 341, 392 and 506 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) - Respondent and petitioners constituted partnership firm according - Petitioners misappropriated firm's money - Respondent approached police for lodging FIR against petitioners - Police refused to lodged FIR - Respondent filed complaint before Magistrate under Section 156(3) of Cr. P. C. - Magistrate allowed complaint and directed police to lodge FIR - Police officer lodged FIR against petitioners for commission of offence under Sections 341, 323, 392 and 506/34 of IPC and conducted investigation - On completion of investigation, police submitted charge sheet and Magistrate took cognizance of offence against petitioners - Hence, present writ petition filed seeking quashment of cognizance taken - Held, from facts and available material on record it established that respondent falsely implicated petitioners in present case due to dispute arose between them in relation to partnership firm running by them - Sufficient ground exist behind present lame prosecution and sufficient reasons and evidences exist to quash the same - Accordingly, writ petition allowed and order of cognizance quashed  - LABOUR & SERVICES 
Pay Scale:[Tarun Chatterjee & R.M. Lodha,JJ] Fixation - Orissa Service Code (1939), Rule 74(b)  Promotion - Government servant, by virtue of Rule 74(b), gets higher pay than what he was getting immediately before his promotion - Circular Dated 19.3.1983 modifying earlier Circular Dated 18.6.1982 resulting in  reduction of pay of employee on promotion  Held, It is not legal. Statutory Rules cannot be altered or amended by such Executive orders or Circulars or Instructions nor can they replace Statutory Rules.
 -  2 since failed in his attempt to rope in petitioner .No.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '(State of Haryana v. Ch. Bhajanlal and Ors.;',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => ' R.K. Nayak,;P.C. Jena
and;S.P. Dash, Advs.',
		'counseldef' => ' Addl. Standing Counsel for O.P. No. 1 and; R.K. Nanda, Adv. for O.P. No. 2',
		'court' => 'Orissa',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2005-10-07',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => ' A.K. Samantaray, J.',
		'judgement' => '<p>A.K. Samantaray, J.</p><p>1. In this Criminal Misc. Case under Section 482, Cr.P.C. the petitioners who are father and sort have prayed for quashing of the order of cognizance dated 19.12.2003 in G.R. Case No. 23 of 2003 passed by learned J.M.F.C.. Patrapur (GM). Learned Magistrate took cognizance of the offences under Sections 341, 323, 392, 506/34, IPC on the allegation of opposite party No. 2.</p><p>2. The prosecution case, as it appears from the complaint petition which was subsequently treated as FIR as per the direction of the learned Magistrate under Section 156(3), CrPC, in short is that the complainant-opposite party No. 2 A. Ranga Rao. petitioner No. 1 Krushna Chandra Sahu, Rajendra Kumar Sahu. Basudev Panda. Pravakar Sabat and Prafulla Kumar Sahu constituted a firm in the name and style of 'Madhupriya Estate'. They also executed a partnership deed on 1.8,1998 and according to the terms of the partnership deed they had to share the capital. It is alleged that petitioner No. 1 Krushna Chandra Sahu did not render any account, income and expenditure of the firm to the complainant-partner A. Ranga Rao, For this act of petitioner No. 1 the relationship between the complainant and the petitioner No. 1 soured. When the complainant insisted for rendering accounts petitioner No. 1 did not give the same and misappropriated the firm's money. It is also alleged that the complainant had reported the matter on 15.10.2002 at Golanthara PS, but the police did not take any action on the matter. It is also alleged in the complaint petition that on 5.2.2003 both the petitioner came in a Motor-cycle, rebuked the complainant, threatened him. dealt fist blows and took away cash of Rs. 20,000/- from his pocket when he was proceeding on the canal road towards Berhampur town. On these allegations a complaint petition was filed alleging further that the complainant had been to the police and the police called him 4-5 times, but ultimately did not take any action. The said complaint petition filed before the learned Magistrate on 17.2.2003 was registered as ICC No. 2/2003 and subsequently the learned Magistrate forwarded the complaint petition to the OIC. Golanthara PS to treat the same as FIR under Section 156(3). CrPC. and to proceed with the same in accordance with law. On receipt of the said complaint from the Court the Golanthara police treated the same as FIR, registered Golanthara PS case No. 98/ 2003 for the offence under Sections 341, 323, 392 and 506/34 IPC and proceeded with the investigation and on completion of the investigation submitted charge-sheet. Although there was no legal material available/collected during the course of the investigation and the learned Magistrate after receipt of the charge-sheet without application of his judicial mind and without considering the backdrop which resulted in the initiation of the case against the petitioners, took cognizance of the offence it is alleged.</p><p>3. The salient grounds taken by the petitioners in this application' under Section 482, CrPC to quash the order of cognizance are that there exists dispute of civil nature between the parties arising out of the partnership firm. The complainant-opposite party No. 2 since failed in his attempt to rope in petitioner . No. 1 in another criminal case which he had earlier initiated against him, he has come out with the frivolous complaint to wreck vengeance against the petitioners who are father and son and are in no way involved in the alleged offences.</p><p>4. During the hearing of the petition and also on a perusal of the complaint/FIR and the case diary I come to find that the parties had admittedly started a real estate business and it is also admitted fact that there was a partnership deed executed by the parties to the said partnership firm on 1.8.1998 where this petitioner No. l Krushna Chandra Sahu, A. Ranga Rao, the complainant, Rajendra Kumar Sahu, Basudev Panda, Pravakar Sabat and Prafulla Kumar Sahu were the partners. On a scrutiny of the said partnership deed which contains many clauses regarding the function of the firm, share to be contributed, role which be played by each partner have been specifically mentioned in the said deed. In clause 18 there is specific mention that any dispute or difference arising amongst the partners with respect to the construction or interpretation of the deed or any other matter relating to the partnership affairs shall be referred to arbitration under the provisions of Indian Arbitration Act by appointing Arbitrator.</p><p>5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners argued that since undisputedly there is a partnership firm and the entire allegation of the complainant hinges round the said partnership business and when particularly there is a clause in the partnership deed that any dispute between the parties shall be referred to an Arbitrator by appointing one under the Arbitration Act, whose decision shall be final and binding on the parties to which all the partners including the complainant agreed, filing of a complaint petition on flimsy and false allegations against another partner and his son is totally unwarranted.</p><p>6. Taking me into col.6 of the complaint petition of the complainant, learned Counsel for the petitioner pointed out that the alleged occurrence, according to the petitioner, took place on 5.2.2003 which has been mentioned in the said column. But in the said column it is also mentioned that the complainant lodged a report at Golanthara PS regarding the incident on 16.10.2002. He argued vehemently that this is itself is a glaring instance as to how the case is a false and frivolous one initiated to wreck vengeance and when the occurrence itself according to the complainant took place on 5.2.2003, report regarding such occurrence could not have been lodged at the police station on 16.10.2002. Learned counsel also took me through the statements of the other partners of the firm recorded by the I.O. under Section 161, CrPC., who have all stated that the complainant-opposite party No. 2 had dispute relating to the partnership firm with petitioner No. 1 Krushna Chandra Sahu for non-contribution of Rs. l lakh to the firm by complainant-opposite party No. 2. He further took me to the case diary wherein during the investigation of the case the I.O. has categorically mentioned that during the year 2002, due to misunderstanding that prevailed between the parties, the dispute arising out of the partnership firm and the contribution to the same the complainant-opposite party No. 2 reported on 17.10.2002 and 20.1.2003 and petitioner No. 1 Krushna Chandra Sahu had reported on 20.1.2003 and since the allegations related to the partnership firm and both had alleged against each other and no document could be produced to substantiate the allegations the police had made only station diary entries as the dispute was found to be civil nature. Apart from that, the parties became political rivals of each other during the Panchayat and Zilla Parishad elections, although earlier they belonged to one party. Lastly, it was submitted by learned Counsel for the petitioner that the entire episode which has been narrated in the complaint petition is the outcome of the partnership business and if the complainant had any grudge and any doubt regarding misappropriation of partnership fund by the accused petitioner No. l, he could have taken shelter in the appropriate forum by filing civil litigation. Without doing so, he has resorted to criminal prosecution on very flimsy-ground and not only that he has implicated the son of petitioner No. 1 who is an engineering student and prosecuting his study, he submitted.</p><p>7. It is apparent on record that petitioner No. 1 is businessman and it is submitted by learned Counsel for the petitioner that he is an income tax assessee and the allegation that has been brought by the complainant in his complaint petition which was subsequently treated as FIR by order of learned Magistrate is that the petitioners obstructed the complainant on his way while he was proceeding in his motor-cycle, threatened him, dealt pushes and fist blows, criminally intimidated him and took away cash of Rs. 20,000/- from his pocket. On the face of all these earlier disputes between the parties allegations and counter allegations against each other and political rivalry and the other facts that I have discussed in the preceding paragraphs relating to. the report about this incident to the police even before it took place, makes the matter highly suspicious, rather improbable.</p><p>8. Learned Addl. Standing Counsel appearing for the State submitted that enmity being, a double edged weapon and in the instant case when the police has submitted charge-sheet and the learned Magistrate has taken cognizance of the offence basing on the same, the order of cognizance should not be quashed as the truth or otherwise of the matter can be ascertained only after a legitimate trial of the petitioners in the Court of learned Magistrate. Learned counsel for the petitioner, on the other hand, relying on a decision reported in : 1992CriLJ527 (State of Haryana v. Ch. Bhajanlal and Ors.) submitted in the light of the said judgment that in the instant case, the FIR of the complainant, even it is taken on its face value and accepted in its entirety it does not constitute any offence or make out any case against the petitioners. He also submitted that the allegations in the complaint/FIR are so absurd and inherently improbable that on the basis of the same no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion. He vehemently urged that this criminal proceeding even manifestly attended with mala fide and the same is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wrecking vengeance on the accused-petitioners with a view to spite them due to private and personal grudge.</p><p>9. On the admitted factual position and the constant rift between the parties which culminated out of partnership firm and subsequent political rivalry has given rise to this criminal case and the valid object behind this lame prosecution, the very nature of the material on which the structure of the prosecution rests are sufficient for this Court to quash the proceeding in the interest of justice as ends of justice are higher than the ends of mere law though justice has got to be administered according to the laws made by the Legislature. In my view, this is a fit case where the inherent power u/s 482, CrPC should be exercised to quash the proceeding as the entire prosecution case rests on false, frivolous and vexatious allegations and to allow continuance of the proceeding would be sheer misuse of the process of the Court.</p><p>10. In the result, I quash the order of cognizance order dated 19.12.2003 in G.R. Case No. 23 of 2003 pending in the Court of J.M.F.C., Patrapur and so also the criminal proceeding.</p><p>11. The Criminal Misc. Case is accordingly allowed.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '2005(II)OLR793',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'State of Orissa and anr.',
		'sub' => 'Criminal',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'krushna-chandra-sahu-vs-state-orissa'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '535665',
	(int) 1 => 'krushna-chandra-sahu-vs-state-orissa'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/535665/krushna-chandra-sahu-vs-state-orissa'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$caseref = '(State of Haryana v. Ch. Bhajanlal and Ors.<br>'
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 123
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

a.k. samantaray, j.1. in this criminal misc. case under section 482, cr.p.c. the petitioners who are father and sort have prayed for quashing of the order of cognizance dated 19.12.2003 in g.r. case no. 23 of 2003 passed by learned j.m.f.c.. patrapur (gm). learned magistrate took cognizance of the offences under sections 341, 323, 392, 506/34, ipc on the allegation of opposite party no. 2.2. the prosecution case, as it appears from the complaint petition which was subsequently treated as fir as per the direction of the learned magistrate under section 156(3), crpc, in short is that the complainant-opposite party no. 2 a. ranga rao. petitioner no. 1 krushna chandra sahu, rajendra kumar sahu. basudev panda. pravakar sabat and prafulla kumar sahu constituted a firm in the name and style of.....

Judgment:

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Context                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Krushna Chandra Sahu and anr Vs State of Orissa and anr - Citation 535665 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '535665',
			'acts' => 'Arbitration Act; <a href="/act/50902/code-of-criminal-procedure-1973-complete-act">Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1973</a> - Sections 156(3), 161 and 482; Indian Penal Code (IPC) - Sections 34, 323, 341, 392 and 506',
			'appealno' => 'Crl. Misc. Case No. 1814 of 2004',
			'appellant' => 'Krushna Chandra Sahu and anr.',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Krushna Chandra Sahu and anr. Vs. State of Orissa and anr.',
			'casenote' => 'Criminal - Cognizance - Quashing of - Section 156(3) of Code of Criminal Procedure,1973(Cr. PC) and Sections 34, 323, 341, 392 and 506 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) - Respondent and petitioners constituted partnership firm according - Petitioners misappropriated firm's money - Respondent approached police for lodging FIR against petitioners - Police refused to lodged FIR - Respondent filed complaint before Magistrate under Section 156(3) of Cr. P. C. - Magistrate allowed complaint and directed police to lodge FIR - Police officer lodged FIR against petitioners for commission of offence under Sections 341, 323, 392 and 506/34 of IPC and conducted investigation - On completion of investigation, police submitted charge sheet and Magistrate took cognizance of offence against petitioners - Hence, present writ petition filed seeking quashment of cognizance taken - Held, from facts and available material on record it established that respondent falsely implicated petitioners in present case due to dispute arose between them in relation to partnership firm running by them - Sufficient ground exist behind present lame prosecution and sufficient reasons and evidences exist to quash the same - Accordingly, writ petition allowed and order of cognizance quashed  - LABOUR & SERVICES 
Pay Scale:[Tarun Chatterjee & R.M. Lodha,JJ] Fixation - Orissa Service Code (1939), Rule 74(b)  Promotion - Government servant, by virtue of Rule 74(b), gets higher pay than what he was getting immediately before his promotion - Circular Dated 19.3.1983 modifying earlier Circular Dated 18.6.1982 resulting in  reduction of pay of employee on promotion  Held, It is not legal. Statutory Rules cannot be altered or amended by such Executive orders or Circulars or Instructions nor can they replace Statutory Rules.
 -  2 since failed in his attempt to rope in petitioner .No.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '(State of Haryana v. Ch. Bhajanlal and Ors.;',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => ' R.K. Nayak,;P.C. Jena
and;S.P. Dash, Advs.',
			'counseldef' => ' Addl. Standing Counsel for O.P. No. 1 and; R.K. Nanda, Adv. for O.P. No. 2',
			'court' => 'Orissa',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2005-10-07',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => ' A.K. Samantaray, J.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">A.K. Samantaray, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. In this Criminal Misc. Case under Section 482, Cr.P.C. the petitioners who are father and sort have prayed for quashing of the order of cognizance dated 19.12.2003 in G.R. Case No. 23 of 2003 passed by learned J.M.F.C.. Patrapur (GM). Learned Magistrate took cognizance of the offences under Sections 341, 323, 392, 506/34, IPC on the allegation of opposite party No. 2.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The prosecution case, as it appears from the complaint petition which was subsequently treated as FIR as per the direction of the learned Magistrate under Section 156(3), CrPC, in short is that the complainant-opposite party No. 2 A. Ranga Rao. petitioner No. 1 Krushna Chandra Sahu, Rajendra Kumar Sahu. Basudev Panda. Pravakar Sabat and Prafulla Kumar Sahu constituted a firm in the name and style of 'Madhupriya Estate'. They also executed a partnership deed on 1.8,1998 and according to the terms of the partnership deed they had to share the capital. It is alleged that petitioner No. 1 Krushna Chandra Sahu did not render any account, income and expenditure of the firm to the complainant-partner A. Ranga Rao, For this act of petitioner No. 1 the relationship between the complainant and the petitioner No. 1 soured. When the complainant insisted for rendering accounts petitioner No. 1 did not give the same and misappropriated the firm's money. It is also alleged that the complainant had reported the matter on 15.10.2002 at Golanthara PS, but the police did not take any action on the matter. It is also alleged in the complaint petition that on 5.2.2003 both the petitioner came in a Motor-cycle, rebuked the complainant, threatened him. dealt fist blows and took away cash of Rs. 20,000/- from his pocket when he was proceeding on the canal road towards Berhampur town. On these allegations a complaint petition was filed alleging further that the complainant had been to the police and the police called him 4-5 times, but ultimately did not take any action. The said complaint petition filed before the learned Magistrate on 17.2.2003 was registered as ICC No. 2/2003 and subsequently the learned Magistrate forwarded the complaint petition to the OIC. Golanthara PS to treat the same as FIR under Section 156(3). CrPC. and to proceed with the same in accordance with law. On receipt of the said complaint from the Court the Golanthara police treated the same as FIR, registered Golanthara PS case No. 98/ 2003 for the offence under Sections 341, 323, 392 and 506/34 IPC and proceeded with the investigation and on completion of the investigation submitted charge-sheet. Although there was no legal material available/collected during the course of the investigation and the learned Magistrate after receipt of the charge-sheet without application of his judicial mind and without considering the backdrop which resulted in the initiation of the case against the petitioners, took cognizance of the offence it is alleged.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. The salient grounds taken by the petitioners in this application' under Section 482, CrPC to quash the order of cognizance are that there exists dispute of civil nature between the parties arising out of the partnership firm. The complainant-opposite party No. 2 since failed in his attempt to rope in petitioner . No. 1 in another criminal case which he had earlier initiated against him, he has come out with the frivolous complaint to wreck vengeance against the petitioners who are father and son and are in no way involved in the alleged offences.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. During the hearing of the petition and also on a perusal of the complaint/FIR and the case diary I come to find that the parties had admittedly started a real estate business and it is also admitted fact that there was a partnership deed executed by the parties to the said partnership firm on 1.8.1998 where this petitioner No. l Krushna Chandra Sahu, A. Ranga Rao, the complainant, Rajendra Kumar Sahu, Basudev Panda, Pravakar Sabat and Prafulla Kumar Sahu were the partners. On a scrutiny of the said partnership deed which contains many clauses regarding the function of the firm, share to be contributed, role which be played by each partner have been specifically mentioned in the said deed. In clause 18 there is specific mention that any dispute or difference arising amongst the partners with respect to the construction or interpretation of the deed or any other matter relating to the partnership affairs shall be referred to arbitration under the provisions of Indian Arbitration Act by appointing Arbitrator.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners argued that since undisputedly there is a partnership firm and the entire allegation of the complainant hinges round the said partnership business and when particularly there is a clause in the partnership deed that any dispute between the parties shall be referred to an Arbitrator by appointing one under the Arbitration Act, whose decision shall be final and binding on the parties to which all the partners including the complainant agreed, filing of a complaint petition on flimsy and false allegations against another partner and his son is totally unwarranted.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. Taking me into col.6 of the complaint petition of the complainant, learned Counsel for the petitioner pointed out that the alleged occurrence, according to the petitioner, took place on 5.2.2003 which has been mentioned in the said column. But in the said column it is also mentioned that the complainant lodged a report at Golanthara PS regarding the incident on 16.10.2002. He argued vehemently that this is itself is a glaring instance as to how the case is a false and frivolous one initiated to wreck vengeance and when the occurrence itself according to the complainant took place on 5.2.2003, report regarding such occurrence could not have been lodged at the police station on 16.10.2002. Learned counsel also took me through the statements of the other partners of the firm recorded by the I.O. under Section 161, CrPC., who have all stated that the complainant-opposite party No. 2 had dispute relating to the partnership firm with petitioner No. 1 Krushna Chandra Sahu for non-contribution of Rs. l lakh to the firm by complainant-opposite party No. 2. He further took me to the case diary wherein during the investigation of the case the I.O. has categorically mentioned that during the year 2002, due to misunderstanding that prevailed between the parties, the dispute arising out of the partnership firm and the contribution to the same the complainant-opposite party No. 2 reported on 17.10.2002 and 20.1.2003 and petitioner No. 1 Krushna Chandra Sahu had reported on 20.1.2003 and since the allegations related to the partnership firm and both had alleged against each other and no document could be produced to substantiate the allegations the police had made only station diary entries as the dispute was found to be civil nature. Apart from that, the parties became political rivals of each other during the Panchayat and Zilla Parishad elections, although earlier they belonged to one party. Lastly, it was submitted by learned Counsel for the petitioner that the entire episode which has been narrated in the complaint petition is the outcome of the partnership business and if the complainant had any grudge and any doubt regarding misappropriation of partnership fund by the accused petitioner No. l, he could have taken shelter in the appropriate forum by filing civil litigation. Without doing so, he has resorted to criminal prosecution on very flimsy-ground and not only that he has implicated the son of petitioner No. 1 who is an engineering student and prosecuting his study, he submitted.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. It is apparent on record that petitioner No. 1 is businessman and it is submitted by learned Counsel for the petitioner that he is an income tax assessee and the allegation that has been brought by the complainant in his complaint petition which was subsequently treated as FIR by order of learned Magistrate is that the petitioners obstructed the complainant on his way while he was proceeding in his motor-cycle, threatened him, dealt pushes and fist blows, criminally intimidated him and took away cash of Rs. 20,000/- from his pocket. On the face of all these earlier disputes between the parties allegations and counter allegations against each other and political rivalry and the other facts that I have discussed in the preceding paragraphs relating to. the report about this incident to the police even before it took place, makes the matter highly suspicious, rather improbable.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. Learned Addl. Standing Counsel appearing for the State submitted that enmity being, a double edged weapon and in the instant case when the police has submitted charge-sheet and the learned Magistrate has taken cognizance of the offence basing on the same, the order of cognizance should not be quashed as the truth or otherwise of the matter can be ascertained only after a legitimate trial of the petitioners in the Court of learned Magistrate. Learned counsel for the petitioner, on the other hand, relying on a decision reported in : 1992CriLJ527 (State of Haryana v. Ch. Bhajanlal and Ors.) submitted in the light of the said judgment that in the instant case, the FIR of the complainant, even it is taken on its face value and accepted in its entirety it does not constitute any offence or make out any case against the petitioners. He also submitted that the allegations in the complaint/FIR are so absurd and inherently improbable that on the basis of the same no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion. He vehemently urged that this criminal proceeding even manifestly attended with mala fide and the same is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wrecking vengeance on the accused-petitioners with a view to spite them due to private and personal grudge.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. On the admitted factual position and the constant rift between the parties which culminated out of partnership firm and subsequent political rivalry has given rise to this criminal case and the valid object behind this lame prosecution, the very nature of the material on which the structure of the prosecution rests are sufficient for this Court to quash the proceeding in the interest of justice as ends of justice are higher than the ends of mere law though justice has got to be administered according to the laws made by the Legislature. In my view, this is a fit case where the inherent power u/s 482, CrPC should be exercised to quash the proceeding as the entire prosecution case rests on false, frivolous and vexatious allegations and to allow continuance of the proceeding would be sheer misuse of the process of the Court.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. In the result, I quash the order of cognizance order dated 19.12.2003 in G.R. Case No. 23 of 2003 pending in the Court of J.M.F.C., Patrapur and so also the criminal proceeding.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">11. The Criminal Misc. Case is accordingly allowed.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '2005(II)OLR793',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'State of Orissa and anr.',
			'sub' => 'Criminal',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'krushna-chandra-sahu-vs-state-orissa',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '535665',
		(int) 1 => 'krushna-chandra-sahu-vs-state-orissa'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Krushna Chandra Sahu and anr Vs State of Orissa and anr - Citation 535665 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '535665',
		'acts' => 'Arbitration Act; <a href="/act/50902/code-of-criminal-procedure-1973-complete-act">Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1973</a> - Sections 156(3), 161 and 482; Indian Penal Code (IPC) - Sections 34, 323, 341, 392 and 506',
		'appealno' => 'Crl. Misc. Case No. 1814 of 2004',
		'appellant' => 'Krushna Chandra Sahu and anr.',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Krushna Chandra Sahu and anr. Vs. State of Orissa and anr.',
		'casenote' => 'Criminal - Cognizance - Quashing of - Section 156(3) of Code of Criminal Procedure,1973(Cr. PC) and Sections 34, 323, 341, 392 and 506 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) - Respondent and petitioners constituted partnership firm according - Petitioners misappropriated firm's money - Respondent approached police for lodging FIR against petitioners - Police refused to lodged FIR - Respondent filed complaint before Magistrate under Section 156(3) of Cr. P. C. - Magistrate allowed complaint and directed police to lodge FIR - Police officer lodged FIR against petitioners for commission of offence under Sections 341, 323, 392 and 506/34 of IPC and conducted investigation - On completion of investigation, police submitted charge sheet and Magistrate took cognizance of offence against petitioners - Hence, present writ petition filed seeking quashment of cognizance taken - Held, from facts and available material on record it established that respondent falsely implicated petitioners in present case due to dispute arose between them in relation to partnership firm running by them - Sufficient ground exist behind present lame prosecution and sufficient reasons and evidences exist to quash the same - Accordingly, writ petition allowed and order of cognizance quashed  - LABOUR & SERVICES 
Pay Scale:[Tarun Chatterjee & R.M. Lodha,JJ] Fixation - Orissa Service Code (1939), Rule 74(b)  Promotion - Government servant, by virtue of Rule 74(b), gets higher pay than what he was getting immediately before his promotion - Circular Dated 19.3.1983 modifying earlier Circular Dated 18.6.1982 resulting in  reduction of pay of employee on promotion  Held, It is not legal. Statutory Rules cannot be altered or amended by such Executive orders or Circulars or Instructions nor can they replace Statutory Rules.
 -  2 since failed in his attempt to rope in petitioner .No.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '(State of Haryana v. Ch. Bhajanlal and Ors.;',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => ' R.K. Nayak,;P.C. Jena
and;S.P. Dash, Advs.',
		'counseldef' => ' Addl. Standing Counsel for O.P. No. 1 and; R.K. Nanda, Adv. for O.P. No. 2',
		'court' => 'Orissa',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2005-10-07',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => ' A.K. Samantaray, J.',
		'judgement' => '<p>A.K. Samantaray, J.</p><p>1. In this Criminal Misc. Case under Section 482, Cr.P.C. the petitioners who are father and sort have prayed for quashing of the order of cognizance dated 19.12.2003 in G.R. Case No. 23 of 2003 passed by learned J.M.F.C.. Patrapur (GM). Learned Magistrate took cognizance of the offences under Sections 341, 323, 392, 506/34, IPC on the allegation of opposite party No. 2.</p><p>2. The prosecution case, as it appears from the complaint petition which was subsequently treated as FIR as per the direction of the learned Magistrate under Section 156(3), CrPC, in short is that the complainant-opposite party No. 2 A. Ranga Rao. petitioner No. 1 Krushna Chandra Sahu, Rajendra Kumar Sahu. Basudev Panda. Pravakar Sabat and Prafulla Kumar Sahu constituted a firm in the name and style of 'Madhupriya Estate'. They also executed a partnership deed on 1.8,1998 and according to the terms of the partnership deed they had to share the capital. It is alleged that petitioner No. 1 Krushna Chandra Sahu did not render any account, income and expenditure of the firm to the complainant-partner A. Ranga Rao, For this act of petitioner No. 1 the relationship between the complainant and the petitioner No. 1 soured. When the complainant insisted for rendering accounts petitioner No. 1 did not give the same and misappropriated the firm's money. It is also alleged that the complainant had reported the matter on 15.10.2002 at Golanthara PS, but the police did not take any action on the matter. It is also alleged in the complaint petition that on 5.2.2003 both the petitioner came in a Motor-cycle, rebuked the complainant, threatened him. dealt fist blows and took away cash of Rs. 20,000/- from his pocket when he was proceeding on the canal road towards Berhampur town. On these allegations a complaint petition was filed alleging further that the complainant had been to the police and the police called him 4-5 times, but ultimately did not take any action. The said complaint petition filed before the learned Magistrate on 17.2.2003 was registered as ICC No. 2/2003 and subsequently the learned Magistrate forwarded the complaint petition to the OIC. Golanthara PS to treat the same as FIR under Section 156(3). CrPC. and to proceed with the same in accordance with law. On receipt of the said complaint from the Court the Golanthara police treated the same as FIR, registered Golanthara PS case No. 98/ 2003 for the offence under Sections 341, 323, 392 and 506/34 IPC and proceeded with the investigation and on completion of the investigation submitted charge-sheet. Although there was no legal material available/collected during the course of the investigation and the learned Magistrate after receipt of the charge-sheet without application of his judicial mind and without considering the backdrop which resulted in the initiation of the case against the petitioners, took cognizance of the offence it is alleged.</p><p>3. The salient grounds taken by the petitioners in this application' under Section 482, CrPC to quash the order of cognizance are that there exists dispute of civil nature between the parties arising out of the partnership firm. The complainant-opposite party No. 2 since failed in his attempt to rope in petitioner . No. 1 in another criminal case which he had earlier initiated against him, he has come out with the frivolous complaint to wreck vengeance against the petitioners who are father and son and are in no way involved in the alleged offences.</p><p>4. During the hearing of the petition and also on a perusal of the complaint/FIR and the case diary I come to find that the parties had admittedly started a real estate business and it is also admitted fact that there was a partnership deed executed by the parties to the said partnership firm on 1.8.1998 where this petitioner No. l Krushna Chandra Sahu, A. Ranga Rao, the complainant, Rajendra Kumar Sahu, Basudev Panda, Pravakar Sabat and Prafulla Kumar Sahu were the partners. On a scrutiny of the said partnership deed which contains many clauses regarding the function of the firm, share to be contributed, role which be played by each partner have been specifically mentioned in the said deed. In clause 18 there is specific mention that any dispute or difference arising amongst the partners with respect to the construction or interpretation of the deed or any other matter relating to the partnership affairs shall be referred to arbitration under the provisions of Indian Arbitration Act by appointing Arbitrator.</p><p>5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners argued that since undisputedly there is a partnership firm and the entire allegation of the complainant hinges round the said partnership business and when particularly there is a clause in the partnership deed that any dispute between the parties shall be referred to an Arbitrator by appointing one under the Arbitration Act, whose decision shall be final and binding on the parties to which all the partners including the complainant agreed, filing of a complaint petition on flimsy and false allegations against another partner and his son is totally unwarranted.</p><p>6. Taking me into col.6 of the complaint petition of the complainant, learned Counsel for the petitioner pointed out that the alleged occurrence, according to the petitioner, took place on 5.2.2003 which has been mentioned in the said column. But in the said column it is also mentioned that the complainant lodged a report at Golanthara PS regarding the incident on 16.10.2002. He argued vehemently that this is itself is a glaring instance as to how the case is a false and frivolous one initiated to wreck vengeance and when the occurrence itself according to the complainant took place on 5.2.2003, report regarding such occurrence could not have been lodged at the police station on 16.10.2002. Learned counsel also took me through the statements of the other partners of the firm recorded by the I.O. under Section 161, CrPC., who have all stated that the complainant-opposite party No. 2 had dispute relating to the partnership firm with petitioner No. 1 Krushna Chandra Sahu for non-contribution of Rs. l lakh to the firm by complainant-opposite party No. 2. He further took me to the case diary wherein during the investigation of the case the I.O. has categorically mentioned that during the year 2002, due to misunderstanding that prevailed between the parties, the dispute arising out of the partnership firm and the contribution to the same the complainant-opposite party No. 2 reported on 17.10.2002 and 20.1.2003 and petitioner No. 1 Krushna Chandra Sahu had reported on 20.1.2003 and since the allegations related to the partnership firm and both had alleged against each other and no document could be produced to substantiate the allegations the police had made only station diary entries as the dispute was found to be civil nature. Apart from that, the parties became political rivals of each other during the Panchayat and Zilla Parishad elections, although earlier they belonged to one party. Lastly, it was submitted by learned Counsel for the petitioner that the entire episode which has been narrated in the complaint petition is the outcome of the partnership business and if the complainant had any grudge and any doubt regarding misappropriation of partnership fund by the accused petitioner No. l, he could have taken shelter in the appropriate forum by filing civil litigation. Without doing so, he has resorted to criminal prosecution on very flimsy-ground and not only that he has implicated the son of petitioner No. 1 who is an engineering student and prosecuting his study, he submitted.</p><p>7. It is apparent on record that petitioner No. 1 is businessman and it is submitted by learned Counsel for the petitioner that he is an income tax assessee and the allegation that has been brought by the complainant in his complaint petition which was subsequently treated as FIR by order of learned Magistrate is that the petitioners obstructed the complainant on his way while he was proceeding in his motor-cycle, threatened him, dealt pushes and fist blows, criminally intimidated him and took away cash of Rs. 20,000/- from his pocket. On the face of all these earlier disputes between the parties allegations and counter allegations against each other and political rivalry and the other facts that I have discussed in the preceding paragraphs relating to. the report about this incident to the police even before it took place, makes the matter highly suspicious, rather improbable.</p><p>8. Learned Addl. Standing Counsel appearing for the State submitted that enmity being, a double edged weapon and in the instant case when the police has submitted charge-sheet and the learned Magistrate has taken cognizance of the offence basing on the same, the order of cognizance should not be quashed as the truth or otherwise of the matter can be ascertained only after a legitimate trial of the petitioners in the Court of learned Magistrate. Learned counsel for the petitioner, on the other hand, relying on a decision reported in : 1992CriLJ527 (State of Haryana v. Ch. Bhajanlal and Ors.) submitted in the light of the said judgment that in the instant case, the FIR of the complainant, even it is taken on its face value and accepted in its entirety it does not constitute any offence or make out any case against the petitioners. He also submitted that the allegations in the complaint/FIR are so absurd and inherently improbable that on the basis of the same no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion. He vehemently urged that this criminal proceeding even manifestly attended with mala fide and the same is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wrecking vengeance on the accused-petitioners with a view to spite them due to private and personal grudge.</p><p>9. On the admitted factual position and the constant rift between the parties which culminated out of partnership firm and subsequent political rivalry has given rise to this criminal case and the valid object behind this lame prosecution, the very nature of the material on which the structure of the prosecution rests are sufficient for this Court to quash the proceeding in the interest of justice as ends of justice are higher than the ends of mere law though justice has got to be administered according to the laws made by the Legislature. In my view, this is a fit case where the inherent power u/s 482, CrPC should be exercised to quash the proceeding as the entire prosecution case rests on false, frivolous and vexatious allegations and to allow continuance of the proceeding would be sheer misuse of the process of the Court.</p><p>10. In the result, I quash the order of cognizance order dated 19.12.2003 in G.R. Case No. 23 of 2003 pending in the Court of J.M.F.C., Patrapur and so also the criminal proceeding.</p><p>11. The Criminal Misc. Case is accordingly allowed.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '2005(II)OLR793',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'State of Orissa and anr.',
		'sub' => 'Criminal',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'krushna-chandra-sahu-vs-state-orissa'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '535665',
	(int) 1 => 'krushna-chandra-sahu-vs-state-orissa'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/535665/krushna-chandra-sahu-vs-state-orissa'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$caseref = '(State of Haryana v. Ch. Bhajanlal and Ors.<br>'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>A.K. Samantaray, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. In this Criminal Misc. Case under Section 482, Cr.P.C. the petitioners who are father and sort have prayed for quashing of the order of cognizance dated 19.12.2003 in G.R. Case No. 23 of 2003 passed by learned J.M.F.C.. Patrapur (GM). Learned Magistrate took cognizance of the offences under Sections 341, 323, 392, 506/34, IPC on the allegation of opposite party No. 2.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. The prosecution case, as it appears from the complaint petition which was subsequently treated as FIR as per the direction of the learned Magistrate under Section 156(3), CrPC, in short is that the complainant-opposite party No. 2 A. Ranga Rao. petitioner No. 1 Krushna Chandra Sahu, Rajendra Kumar Sahu. Basudev Panda. Pravakar Sabat and Prafulla Kumar Sahu constituted a firm in the name and style of 'Madhupriya Estate'. They also executed a partnership deed on 1.8,1998 and according to the terms of the partnership deed they had to share the capital. It is alleged that petitioner No. 1 Krushna Chandra Sahu did not render any account, income and expenditure of the firm to the complainant-partner A. Ranga Rao, For this act of petitioner No. 1 the relationship between the complainant and the petitioner No. 1 soured. When the complainant insisted for rendering accounts petitioner No. 1 did not give the same and misappropriated the firm's money. It is also alleged that the complainant had reported the matter on 15.10.2002 at Golanthara PS, but the police did not take any action on the matter. It is also alleged in the complaint petition that on 5.2.2003 both the petitioner came in a Motor-cycle, rebuked the complainant, threatened him. dealt fist blows and took away cash of Rs. 20,000/- from his pocket when he was proceeding on the canal road towards Berhampur town. On these allegations a complaint petition was filed alleging further that the complainant had been to the police and the police called him 4-5 times, but ultimately did not take any action. The said complaint petition filed before the learned Magistrate on 17.2.2003 was registered as ICC No. 2/2003 and subsequently the learned Magistrate forwarded the complaint petition to the OIC. Golanthara PS to treat the same as FIR under Section 156(3). CrPC. and to proceed with the same in accordance with law. On receipt of the said complaint from the Court the Golanthara police treated the same as FIR, registered Golanthara PS case No. 98/ 2003 for the offence under Sections 341, 323, 392 and 506/34 IPC and proceeded with the investigation and on completion of the investigation submitted charge-sheet. Although there was no legal material available/collected during the course of the investigation and the learned Magistrate after receipt of the charge-sheet without application of his judicial mind and without considering the backdrop which resulted in the initiation of the case against the petitioners, took cognizance of the offence it is alleged.',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. The salient grounds taken by the petitioners in this application' under Section 482, CrPC to quash the order of cognizance are that there exists dispute of civil nature between the parties arising out of the partnership firm. The complainant-opposite party No. 2 since failed in his attempt to rope in petitioner . No. 1 in another criminal case which he had earlier initiated against him, he has come out with the frivolous complaint to wreck vengeance against the petitioners who are father and son and are in no way involved in the alleged offences.',
	(int) 4 => '<p>4. During the hearing of the petition and also on a perusal of the complaint/FIR and the case diary I come to find that the parties had admittedly started a real estate business and it is also admitted fact that there was a partnership deed executed by the parties to the said partnership firm on 1.8.1998 where this petitioner No. l Krushna Chandra Sahu, A. Ranga Rao, the complainant, Rajendra Kumar Sahu, Basudev Panda, Pravakar Sabat and Prafulla Kumar Sahu were the partners. On a scrutiny of the said partnership deed which contains many clauses regarding the function of the firm, share to be contributed, role which be played by each partner have been specifically mentioned in the said deed. In clause 18 there is specific mention that any dispute or difference arising amongst the partners with respect to the construction or interpretation of the deed or any other matter relating to the partnership affairs shall be referred to arbitration under the provisions of Indian Arbitration Act by appointing Arbitrator.',
	(int) 5 => '<p>5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners argued that since undisputedly there is a partnership firm and the entire allegation of the complainant hinges round the said partnership business and when particularly there is a clause in the partnership deed that any dispute between the parties shall be referred to an Arbitrator by appointing one under the Arbitration Act, whose decision shall be final and binding on the parties to which all the partners including the complainant agreed, filing of a complaint petition on flimsy and false allegations against another partner and his son is totally unwarranted.',
	(int) 6 => '<p>6. Taking me into col.6 of the complaint petition of the complainant, learned Counsel for the petitioner pointed out that the alleged occurrence, according to the petitioner, took place on 5.2.2003 which has been mentioned in the said column. But in the said column it is also mentioned that the complainant lodged a report at Golanthara PS regarding the incident on 16.10.2002. He argued vehemently that this is itself is a glaring instance as to how the case is a false and frivolous one initiated to wreck vengeance and when the occurrence itself according to the complainant took place on 5.2.2003, report regarding such occurrence could not have been lodged at the police station on 16.10.2002. Learned counsel also took me through the statements of the other partners of the firm recorded by the I.O. under Section 161, CrPC., who have all stated that the complainant-opposite party No. 2 had dispute relating to the partnership firm with petitioner No. 1 Krushna Chandra Sahu for non-contribution of Rs. l lakh to the firm by complainant-opposite party No. 2. He further took me to the case diary wherein during the investigation of the case the I.O. has categorically mentioned that during the year 2002, due to misunderstanding that prevailed between the parties, the dispute arising out of the partnership firm and the contribution to the same the complainant-opposite party No. 2 reported on 17.10.2002 and 20.1.2003 and petitioner No. 1 Krushna Chandra Sahu had reported on 20.1.2003 and since the allegations related to the partnership firm and both had alleged against each other and no document could be produced to substantiate the allegations the police had made only station diary entries as the dispute was found to be civil nature. Apart from that, the parties became political rivals of each other during the Panchayat and Zilla Parishad elections, although earlier they belonged to one party. Lastly, it was submitted by learned Counsel for the petitioner that the entire episode which has been narrated in the complaint petition is the outcome of the partnership business and if the complainant had any grudge and any doubt regarding misappropriation of partnership fund by the accused petitioner No. l, he could have taken shelter in the appropriate forum by filing civil litigation. Without doing so, he has resorted to criminal prosecution on very flimsy-ground and not only that he has implicated the son of petitioner No. 1 who is an engineering student and prosecuting his study, he submitted.',
	(int) 7 => '<p>7. It is apparent on record that petitioner No. 1 is businessman and it is submitted by learned Counsel for the petitioner that he is an income tax assessee and the allegation that has been brought by the complainant in his complaint petition which was subsequently treated as FIR by order of learned Magistrate is that the petitioners obstructed the complainant on his way while he was proceeding in his motor-cycle, threatened him, dealt pushes and fist blows, criminally intimidated him and took away cash of Rs. 20,000/- from his pocket. On the face of all these earlier disputes between the parties allegations and counter allegations against each other and political rivalry and the other facts that I have discussed in the preceding paragraphs relating to. the report about this incident to the police even before it took place, makes the matter highly suspicious, rather improbable.',
	(int) 8 => '<p>8. Learned Addl. Standing Counsel appearing for the State submitted that enmity being, a double edged weapon and in the instant case when the police has submitted charge-sheet and the learned Magistrate has taken cognizance of the offence basing on the same, the order of cognizance should not be quashed as the truth or otherwise of the matter can be ascertained only after a legitimate trial of the petitioners in the Court of learned Magistrate. Learned counsel for the petitioner, on the other hand, relying on a decision reported in : 1992CriLJ527 (State of Haryana v. Ch. Bhajanlal and Ors.) submitted in the light of the said judgment that in the instant case, the FIR of the complainant, even it is taken on its face value and accepted in its entirety it does not constitute any offence or make out any case against the petitioners. He also submitted that the allegations in the complaint/FIR are so absurd and inherently improbable that on the basis of the same no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion. He vehemently urged that this criminal proceeding even manifestly attended with mala fide and the same is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wrecking vengeance on the accused-petitioners with a view to spite them due to private and personal grudge.',
	(int) 9 => '<p>9. On the admitted factual position and the constant rift between the parties which culminated out of partnership firm and subsequent political rivalry has given rise to this criminal case and the valid object behind this lame prosecution, the very nature of the material on which the structure of the prosecution rests are sufficient for this Court to quash the proceeding in the interest of justice as ends of justice are higher than the ends of mere law though justice has got to be administered according to the laws made by the Legislature. In my view, this is a fit case where the inherent power u/s 482, CrPC should be exercised to quash the proceeding as the entire prosecution case rests on false, frivolous and vexatious allegations and to allow continuance of the proceeding would be sheer misuse of the process of the Court.',
	(int) 10 => '<p>10. In the result, I quash the order of cognizance order dated 19.12.2003 in G.R. Case No. 23 of 2003 pending in the Court of J.M.F.C., Patrapur and so also the criminal proceeding.',
	(int) 11 => '<p>11. The Criminal Misc. Case is accordingly allowed.<p>',
	(int) 12 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 13
$i = (int) 0
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

A.K. Samantaray, J.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Context                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Krushna Chandra Sahu and anr Vs State of Orissa and anr - Citation 535665 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '535665',
			'acts' => 'Arbitration Act; <a href="/act/50902/code-of-criminal-procedure-1973-complete-act">Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1973</a> - Sections 156(3), 161 and 482; Indian Penal Code (IPC) - Sections 34, 323, 341, 392 and 506',
			'appealno' => 'Crl. Misc. Case No. 1814 of 2004',
			'appellant' => 'Krushna Chandra Sahu and anr.',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Krushna Chandra Sahu and anr. Vs. State of Orissa and anr.',
			'casenote' => 'Criminal - Cognizance - Quashing of - Section 156(3) of Code of Criminal Procedure,1973(Cr. PC) and Sections 34, 323, 341, 392 and 506 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) - Respondent and petitioners constituted partnership firm according - Petitioners misappropriated firm's money - Respondent approached police for lodging FIR against petitioners - Police refused to lodged FIR - Respondent filed complaint before Magistrate under Section 156(3) of Cr. P. C. - Magistrate allowed complaint and directed police to lodge FIR - Police officer lodged FIR against petitioners for commission of offence under Sections 341, 323, 392 and 506/34 of IPC and conducted investigation - On completion of investigation, police submitted charge sheet and Magistrate took cognizance of offence against petitioners - Hence, present writ petition filed seeking quashment of cognizance taken - Held, from facts and available material on record it established that respondent falsely implicated petitioners in present case due to dispute arose between them in relation to partnership firm running by them - Sufficient ground exist behind present lame prosecution and sufficient reasons and evidences exist to quash the same - Accordingly, writ petition allowed and order of cognizance quashed  - LABOUR & SERVICES 
Pay Scale:[Tarun Chatterjee & R.M. Lodha,JJ] Fixation - Orissa Service Code (1939), Rule 74(b)  Promotion - Government servant, by virtue of Rule 74(b), gets higher pay than what he was getting immediately before his promotion - Circular Dated 19.3.1983 modifying earlier Circular Dated 18.6.1982 resulting in  reduction of pay of employee on promotion  Held, It is not legal. Statutory Rules cannot be altered or amended by such Executive orders or Circulars or Instructions nor can they replace Statutory Rules.
 -  2 since failed in his attempt to rope in petitioner .No.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '(State of Haryana v. Ch. Bhajanlal and Ors.;',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => ' R.K. Nayak,;P.C. Jena
and;S.P. Dash, Advs.',
			'counseldef' => ' Addl. Standing Counsel for O.P. No. 1 and; R.K. Nanda, Adv. for O.P. No. 2',
			'court' => 'Orissa',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2005-10-07',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => ' A.K. Samantaray, J.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">A.K. Samantaray, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. In this Criminal Misc. Case under Section 482, Cr.P.C. the petitioners who are father and sort have prayed for quashing of the order of cognizance dated 19.12.2003 in G.R. Case No. 23 of 2003 passed by learned J.M.F.C.. Patrapur (GM). Learned Magistrate took cognizance of the offences under Sections 341, 323, 392, 506/34, IPC on the allegation of opposite party No. 2.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The prosecution case, as it appears from the complaint petition which was subsequently treated as FIR as per the direction of the learned Magistrate under Section 156(3), CrPC, in short is that the complainant-opposite party No. 2 A. Ranga Rao. petitioner No. 1 Krushna Chandra Sahu, Rajendra Kumar Sahu. Basudev Panda. Pravakar Sabat and Prafulla Kumar Sahu constituted a firm in the name and style of 'Madhupriya Estate'. They also executed a partnership deed on 1.8,1998 and according to the terms of the partnership deed they had to share the capital. It is alleged that petitioner No. 1 Krushna Chandra Sahu did not render any account, income and expenditure of the firm to the complainant-partner A. Ranga Rao, For this act of petitioner No. 1 the relationship between the complainant and the petitioner No. 1 soured. When the complainant insisted for rendering accounts petitioner No. 1 did not give the same and misappropriated the firm's money. It is also alleged that the complainant had reported the matter on 15.10.2002 at Golanthara PS, but the police did not take any action on the matter. It is also alleged in the complaint petition that on 5.2.2003 both the petitioner came in a Motor-cycle, rebuked the complainant, threatened him. dealt fist blows and took away cash of Rs. 20,000/- from his pocket when he was proceeding on the canal road towards Berhampur town. On these allegations a complaint petition was filed alleging further that the complainant had been to the police and the police called him 4-5 times, but ultimately did not take any action. The said complaint petition filed before the learned Magistrate on 17.2.2003 was registered as ICC No. 2/2003 and subsequently the learned Magistrate forwarded the complaint petition to the OIC. Golanthara PS to treat the same as FIR under Section 156(3). CrPC. and to proceed with the same in accordance with law. On receipt of the said complaint from the Court the Golanthara police treated the same as FIR, registered Golanthara PS case No. 98/ 2003 for the offence under Sections 341, 323, 392 and 506/34 IPC and proceeded with the investigation and on completion of the investigation submitted charge-sheet. Although there was no legal material available/collected during the course of the investigation and the learned Magistrate after receipt of the charge-sheet without application of his judicial mind and without considering the backdrop which resulted in the initiation of the case against the petitioners, took cognizance of the offence it is alleged.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. The salient grounds taken by the petitioners in this application' under Section 482, CrPC to quash the order of cognizance are that there exists dispute of civil nature between the parties arising out of the partnership firm. The complainant-opposite party No. 2 since failed in his attempt to rope in petitioner . No. 1 in another criminal case which he had earlier initiated against him, he has come out with the frivolous complaint to wreck vengeance against the petitioners who are father and son and are in no way involved in the alleged offences.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. During the hearing of the petition and also on a perusal of the complaint/FIR and the case diary I come to find that the parties had admittedly started a real estate business and it is also admitted fact that there was a partnership deed executed by the parties to the said partnership firm on 1.8.1998 where this petitioner No. l Krushna Chandra Sahu, A. Ranga Rao, the complainant, Rajendra Kumar Sahu, Basudev Panda, Pravakar Sabat and Prafulla Kumar Sahu were the partners. On a scrutiny of the said partnership deed which contains many clauses regarding the function of the firm, share to be contributed, role which be played by each partner have been specifically mentioned in the said deed. In clause 18 there is specific mention that any dispute or difference arising amongst the partners with respect to the construction or interpretation of the deed or any other matter relating to the partnership affairs shall be referred to arbitration under the provisions of Indian Arbitration Act by appointing Arbitrator.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners argued that since undisputedly there is a partnership firm and the entire allegation of the complainant hinges round the said partnership business and when particularly there is a clause in the partnership deed that any dispute between the parties shall be referred to an Arbitrator by appointing one under the Arbitration Act, whose decision shall be final and binding on the parties to which all the partners including the complainant agreed, filing of a complaint petition on flimsy and false allegations against another partner and his son is totally unwarranted.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. Taking me into col.6 of the complaint petition of the complainant, learned Counsel for the petitioner pointed out that the alleged occurrence, according to the petitioner, took place on 5.2.2003 which has been mentioned in the said column. But in the said column it is also mentioned that the complainant lodged a report at Golanthara PS regarding the incident on 16.10.2002. He argued vehemently that this is itself is a glaring instance as to how the case is a false and frivolous one initiated to wreck vengeance and when the occurrence itself according to the complainant took place on 5.2.2003, report regarding such occurrence could not have been lodged at the police station on 16.10.2002. Learned counsel also took me through the statements of the other partners of the firm recorded by the I.O. under Section 161, CrPC., who have all stated that the complainant-opposite party No. 2 had dispute relating to the partnership firm with petitioner No. 1 Krushna Chandra Sahu for non-contribution of Rs. l lakh to the firm by complainant-opposite party No. 2. He further took me to the case diary wherein during the investigation of the case the I.O. has categorically mentioned that during the year 2002, due to misunderstanding that prevailed between the parties, the dispute arising out of the partnership firm and the contribution to the same the complainant-opposite party No. 2 reported on 17.10.2002 and 20.1.2003 and petitioner No. 1 Krushna Chandra Sahu had reported on 20.1.2003 and since the allegations related to the partnership firm and both had alleged against each other and no document could be produced to substantiate the allegations the police had made only station diary entries as the dispute was found to be civil nature. Apart from that, the parties became political rivals of each other during the Panchayat and Zilla Parishad elections, although earlier they belonged to one party. Lastly, it was submitted by learned Counsel for the petitioner that the entire episode which has been narrated in the complaint petition is the outcome of the partnership business and if the complainant had any grudge and any doubt regarding misappropriation of partnership fund by the accused petitioner No. l, he could have taken shelter in the appropriate forum by filing civil litigation. Without doing so, he has resorted to criminal prosecution on very flimsy-ground and not only that he has implicated the son of petitioner No. 1 who is an engineering student and prosecuting his study, he submitted.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. It is apparent on record that petitioner No. 1 is businessman and it is submitted by learned Counsel for the petitioner that he is an income tax assessee and the allegation that has been brought by the complainant in his complaint petition which was subsequently treated as FIR by order of learned Magistrate is that the petitioners obstructed the complainant on his way while he was proceeding in his motor-cycle, threatened him, dealt pushes and fist blows, criminally intimidated him and took away cash of Rs. 20,000/- from his pocket. On the face of all these earlier disputes between the parties allegations and counter allegations against each other and political rivalry and the other facts that I have discussed in the preceding paragraphs relating to. the report about this incident to the police even before it took place, makes the matter highly suspicious, rather improbable.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. Learned Addl. Standing Counsel appearing for the State submitted that enmity being, a double edged weapon and in the instant case when the police has submitted charge-sheet and the learned Magistrate has taken cognizance of the offence basing on the same, the order of cognizance should not be quashed as the truth or otherwise of the matter can be ascertained only after a legitimate trial of the petitioners in the Court of learned Magistrate. Learned counsel for the petitioner, on the other hand, relying on a decision reported in : 1992CriLJ527 (State of Haryana v. Ch. Bhajanlal and Ors.) submitted in the light of the said judgment that in the instant case, the FIR of the complainant, even it is taken on its face value and accepted in its entirety it does not constitute any offence or make out any case against the petitioners. He also submitted that the allegations in the complaint/FIR are so absurd and inherently improbable that on the basis of the same no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion. He vehemently urged that this criminal proceeding even manifestly attended with mala fide and the same is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wrecking vengeance on the accused-petitioners with a view to spite them due to private and personal grudge.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. On the admitted factual position and the constant rift between the parties which culminated out of partnership firm and subsequent political rivalry has given rise to this criminal case and the valid object behind this lame prosecution, the very nature of the material on which the structure of the prosecution rests are sufficient for this Court to quash the proceeding in the interest of justice as ends of justice are higher than the ends of mere law though justice has got to be administered according to the laws made by the Legislature. In my view, this is a fit case where the inherent power u/s 482, CrPC should be exercised to quash the proceeding as the entire prosecution case rests on false, frivolous and vexatious allegations and to allow continuance of the proceeding would be sheer misuse of the process of the Court.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. In the result, I quash the order of cognizance order dated 19.12.2003 in G.R. Case No. 23 of 2003 pending in the Court of J.M.F.C., Patrapur and so also the criminal proceeding.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">11. The Criminal Misc. Case is accordingly allowed.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '2005(II)OLR793',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'State of Orissa and anr.',
			'sub' => 'Criminal',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'krushna-chandra-sahu-vs-state-orissa',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '535665',
		(int) 1 => 'krushna-chandra-sahu-vs-state-orissa'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Krushna Chandra Sahu and anr Vs State of Orissa and anr - Citation 535665 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '535665',
		'acts' => 'Arbitration Act; <a href="/act/50902/code-of-criminal-procedure-1973-complete-act">Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1973</a> - Sections 156(3), 161 and 482; Indian Penal Code (IPC) - Sections 34, 323, 341, 392 and 506',
		'appealno' => 'Crl. Misc. Case No. 1814 of 2004',
		'appellant' => 'Krushna Chandra Sahu and anr.',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Krushna Chandra Sahu and anr. Vs. State of Orissa and anr.',
		'casenote' => 'Criminal - Cognizance - Quashing of - Section 156(3) of Code of Criminal Procedure,1973(Cr. PC) and Sections 34, 323, 341, 392 and 506 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) - Respondent and petitioners constituted partnership firm according - Petitioners misappropriated firm's money - Respondent approached police for lodging FIR against petitioners - Police refused to lodged FIR - Respondent filed complaint before Magistrate under Section 156(3) of Cr. P. C. - Magistrate allowed complaint and directed police to lodge FIR - Police officer lodged FIR against petitioners for commission of offence under Sections 341, 323, 392 and 506/34 of IPC and conducted investigation - On completion of investigation, police submitted charge sheet and Magistrate took cognizance of offence against petitioners - Hence, present writ petition filed seeking quashment of cognizance taken - Held, from facts and available material on record it established that respondent falsely implicated petitioners in present case due to dispute arose between them in relation to partnership firm running by them - Sufficient ground exist behind present lame prosecution and sufficient reasons and evidences exist to quash the same - Accordingly, writ petition allowed and order of cognizance quashed  - LABOUR & SERVICES 
Pay Scale:[Tarun Chatterjee & R.M. Lodha,JJ] Fixation - Orissa Service Code (1939), Rule 74(b)  Promotion - Government servant, by virtue of Rule 74(b), gets higher pay than what he was getting immediately before his promotion - Circular Dated 19.3.1983 modifying earlier Circular Dated 18.6.1982 resulting in  reduction of pay of employee on promotion  Held, It is not legal. Statutory Rules cannot be altered or amended by such Executive orders or Circulars or Instructions nor can they replace Statutory Rules.
 -  2 since failed in his attempt to rope in petitioner .No.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '(State of Haryana v. Ch. Bhajanlal and Ors.;',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => ' R.K. Nayak,;P.C. Jena
and;S.P. Dash, Advs.',
		'counseldef' => ' Addl. Standing Counsel for O.P. No. 1 and; R.K. Nanda, Adv. for O.P. No. 2',
		'court' => 'Orissa',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2005-10-07',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => ' A.K. Samantaray, J.',
		'judgement' => '<p>A.K. Samantaray, J.</p><p>1. In this Criminal Misc. Case under Section 482, Cr.P.C. the petitioners who are father and sort have prayed for quashing of the order of cognizance dated 19.12.2003 in G.R. Case No. 23 of 2003 passed by learned J.M.F.C.. Patrapur (GM). Learned Magistrate took cognizance of the offences under Sections 341, 323, 392, 506/34, IPC on the allegation of opposite party No. 2.</p><p>2. The prosecution case, as it appears from the complaint petition which was subsequently treated as FIR as per the direction of the learned Magistrate under Section 156(3), CrPC, in short is that the complainant-opposite party No. 2 A. Ranga Rao. petitioner No. 1 Krushna Chandra Sahu, Rajendra Kumar Sahu. Basudev Panda. Pravakar Sabat and Prafulla Kumar Sahu constituted a firm in the name and style of 'Madhupriya Estate'. They also executed a partnership deed on 1.8,1998 and according to the terms of the partnership deed they had to share the capital. It is alleged that petitioner No. 1 Krushna Chandra Sahu did not render any account, income and expenditure of the firm to the complainant-partner A. Ranga Rao, For this act of petitioner No. 1 the relationship between the complainant and the petitioner No. 1 soured. When the complainant insisted for rendering accounts petitioner No. 1 did not give the same and misappropriated the firm's money. It is also alleged that the complainant had reported the matter on 15.10.2002 at Golanthara PS, but the police did not take any action on the matter. It is also alleged in the complaint petition that on 5.2.2003 both the petitioner came in a Motor-cycle, rebuked the complainant, threatened him. dealt fist blows and took away cash of Rs. 20,000/- from his pocket when he was proceeding on the canal road towards Berhampur town. On these allegations a complaint petition was filed alleging further that the complainant had been to the police and the police called him 4-5 times, but ultimately did not take any action. The said complaint petition filed before the learned Magistrate on 17.2.2003 was registered as ICC No. 2/2003 and subsequently the learned Magistrate forwarded the complaint petition to the OIC. Golanthara PS to treat the same as FIR under Section 156(3). CrPC. and to proceed with the same in accordance with law. On receipt of the said complaint from the Court the Golanthara police treated the same as FIR, registered Golanthara PS case No. 98/ 2003 for the offence under Sections 341, 323, 392 and 506/34 IPC and proceeded with the investigation and on completion of the investigation submitted charge-sheet. Although there was no legal material available/collected during the course of the investigation and the learned Magistrate after receipt of the charge-sheet without application of his judicial mind and without considering the backdrop which resulted in the initiation of the case against the petitioners, took cognizance of the offence it is alleged.</p><p>3. The salient grounds taken by the petitioners in this application' under Section 482, CrPC to quash the order of cognizance are that there exists dispute of civil nature between the parties arising out of the partnership firm. The complainant-opposite party No. 2 since failed in his attempt to rope in petitioner . No. 1 in another criminal case which he had earlier initiated against him, he has come out with the frivolous complaint to wreck vengeance against the petitioners who are father and son and are in no way involved in the alleged offences.</p><p>4. During the hearing of the petition and also on a perusal of the complaint/FIR and the case diary I come to find that the parties had admittedly started a real estate business and it is also admitted fact that there was a partnership deed executed by the parties to the said partnership firm on 1.8.1998 where this petitioner No. l Krushna Chandra Sahu, A. Ranga Rao, the complainant, Rajendra Kumar Sahu, Basudev Panda, Pravakar Sabat and Prafulla Kumar Sahu were the partners. On a scrutiny of the said partnership deed which contains many clauses regarding the function of the firm, share to be contributed, role which be played by each partner have been specifically mentioned in the said deed. In clause 18 there is specific mention that any dispute or difference arising amongst the partners with respect to the construction or interpretation of the deed or any other matter relating to the partnership affairs shall be referred to arbitration under the provisions of Indian Arbitration Act by appointing Arbitrator.</p><p>5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners argued that since undisputedly there is a partnership firm and the entire allegation of the complainant hinges round the said partnership business and when particularly there is a clause in the partnership deed that any dispute between the parties shall be referred to an Arbitrator by appointing one under the Arbitration Act, whose decision shall be final and binding on the parties to which all the partners including the complainant agreed, filing of a complaint petition on flimsy and false allegations against another partner and his son is totally unwarranted.</p><p>6. Taking me into col.6 of the complaint petition of the complainant, learned Counsel for the petitioner pointed out that the alleged occurrence, according to the petitioner, took place on 5.2.2003 which has been mentioned in the said column. But in the said column it is also mentioned that the complainant lodged a report at Golanthara PS regarding the incident on 16.10.2002. He argued vehemently that this is itself is a glaring instance as to how the case is a false and frivolous one initiated to wreck vengeance and when the occurrence itself according to the complainant took place on 5.2.2003, report regarding such occurrence could not have been lodged at the police station on 16.10.2002. Learned counsel also took me through the statements of the other partners of the firm recorded by the I.O. under Section 161, CrPC., who have all stated that the complainant-opposite party No. 2 had dispute relating to the partnership firm with petitioner No. 1 Krushna Chandra Sahu for non-contribution of Rs. l lakh to the firm by complainant-opposite party No. 2. He further took me to the case diary wherein during the investigation of the case the I.O. has categorically mentioned that during the year 2002, due to misunderstanding that prevailed between the parties, the dispute arising out of the partnership firm and the contribution to the same the complainant-opposite party No. 2 reported on 17.10.2002 and 20.1.2003 and petitioner No. 1 Krushna Chandra Sahu had reported on 20.1.2003 and since the allegations related to the partnership firm and both had alleged against each other and no document could be produced to substantiate the allegations the police had made only station diary entries as the dispute was found to be civil nature. Apart from that, the parties became political rivals of each other during the Panchayat and Zilla Parishad elections, although earlier they belonged to one party. Lastly, it was submitted by learned Counsel for the petitioner that the entire episode which has been narrated in the complaint petition is the outcome of the partnership business and if the complainant had any grudge and any doubt regarding misappropriation of partnership fund by the accused petitioner No. l, he could have taken shelter in the appropriate forum by filing civil litigation. Without doing so, he has resorted to criminal prosecution on very flimsy-ground and not only that he has implicated the son of petitioner No. 1 who is an engineering student and prosecuting his study, he submitted.</p><p>7. It is apparent on record that petitioner No. 1 is businessman and it is submitted by learned Counsel for the petitioner that he is an income tax assessee and the allegation that has been brought by the complainant in his complaint petition which was subsequently treated as FIR by order of learned Magistrate is that the petitioners obstructed the complainant on his way while he was proceeding in his motor-cycle, threatened him, dealt pushes and fist blows, criminally intimidated him and took away cash of Rs. 20,000/- from his pocket. On the face of all these earlier disputes between the parties allegations and counter allegations against each other and political rivalry and the other facts that I have discussed in the preceding paragraphs relating to. the report about this incident to the police even before it took place, makes the matter highly suspicious, rather improbable.</p><p>8. Learned Addl. Standing Counsel appearing for the State submitted that enmity being, a double edged weapon and in the instant case when the police has submitted charge-sheet and the learned Magistrate has taken cognizance of the offence basing on the same, the order of cognizance should not be quashed as the truth or otherwise of the matter can be ascertained only after a legitimate trial of the petitioners in the Court of learned Magistrate. Learned counsel for the petitioner, on the other hand, relying on a decision reported in : 1992CriLJ527 (State of Haryana v. Ch. Bhajanlal and Ors.) submitted in the light of the said judgment that in the instant case, the FIR of the complainant, even it is taken on its face value and accepted in its entirety it does not constitute any offence or make out any case against the petitioners. He also submitted that the allegations in the complaint/FIR are so absurd and inherently improbable that on the basis of the same no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion. He vehemently urged that this criminal proceeding even manifestly attended with mala fide and the same is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wrecking vengeance on the accused-petitioners with a view to spite them due to private and personal grudge.</p><p>9. On the admitted factual position and the constant rift between the parties which culminated out of partnership firm and subsequent political rivalry has given rise to this criminal case and the valid object behind this lame prosecution, the very nature of the material on which the structure of the prosecution rests are sufficient for this Court to quash the proceeding in the interest of justice as ends of justice are higher than the ends of mere law though justice has got to be administered according to the laws made by the Legislature. In my view, this is a fit case where the inherent power u/s 482, CrPC should be exercised to quash the proceeding as the entire prosecution case rests on false, frivolous and vexatious allegations and to allow continuance of the proceeding would be sheer misuse of the process of the Court.</p><p>10. In the result, I quash the order of cognizance order dated 19.12.2003 in G.R. Case No. 23 of 2003 pending in the Court of J.M.F.C., Patrapur and so also the criminal proceeding.</p><p>11. The Criminal Misc. Case is accordingly allowed.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '2005(II)OLR793',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'State of Orissa and anr.',
		'sub' => 'Criminal',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'krushna-chandra-sahu-vs-state-orissa'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '535665',
	(int) 1 => 'krushna-chandra-sahu-vs-state-orissa'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/535665/krushna-chandra-sahu-vs-state-orissa'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$caseref = '(State of Haryana v. Ch. Bhajanlal and Ors.<br>'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>A.K. Samantaray, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. In this Criminal Misc. Case under Section 482, Cr.P.C. the petitioners who are father and sort have prayed for quashing of the order of cognizance dated 19.12.2003 in G.R. Case No. 23 of 2003 passed by learned J.M.F.C.. Patrapur (GM). Learned Magistrate took cognizance of the offences under Sections 341, 323, 392, 506/34, IPC on the allegation of opposite party No. 2.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. The prosecution case, as it appears from the complaint petition which was subsequently treated as FIR as per the direction of the learned Magistrate under Section 156(3), CrPC, in short is that the complainant-opposite party No. 2 A. Ranga Rao. petitioner No. 1 Krushna Chandra Sahu, Rajendra Kumar Sahu. Basudev Panda. Pravakar Sabat and Prafulla Kumar Sahu constituted a firm in the name and style of 'Madhupriya Estate'. They also executed a partnership deed on 1.8,1998 and according to the terms of the partnership deed they had to share the capital. It is alleged that petitioner No. 1 Krushna Chandra Sahu did not render any account, income and expenditure of the firm to the complainant-partner A. Ranga Rao, For this act of petitioner No. 1 the relationship between the complainant and the petitioner No. 1 soured. When the complainant insisted for rendering accounts petitioner No. 1 did not give the same and misappropriated the firm's money. It is also alleged that the complainant had reported the matter on 15.10.2002 at Golanthara PS, but the police did not take any action on the matter. It is also alleged in the complaint petition that on 5.2.2003 both the petitioner came in a Motor-cycle, rebuked the complainant, threatened him. dealt fist blows and took away cash of Rs. 20,000/- from his pocket when he was proceeding on the canal road towards Berhampur town. On these allegations a complaint petition was filed alleging further that the complainant had been to the police and the police called him 4-5 times, but ultimately did not take any action. The said complaint petition filed before the learned Magistrate on 17.2.2003 was registered as ICC No. 2/2003 and subsequently the learned Magistrate forwarded the complaint petition to the OIC. Golanthara PS to treat the same as FIR under Section 156(3). CrPC. and to proceed with the same in accordance with law. On receipt of the said complaint from the Court the Golanthara police treated the same as FIR, registered Golanthara PS case No. 98/ 2003 for the offence under Sections 341, 323, 392 and 506/34 IPC and proceeded with the investigation and on completion of the investigation submitted charge-sheet. Although there was no legal material available/collected during the course of the investigation and the learned Magistrate after receipt of the charge-sheet without application of his judicial mind and without considering the backdrop which resulted in the initiation of the case against the petitioners, took cognizance of the offence it is alleged.',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. The salient grounds taken by the petitioners in this application' under Section 482, CrPC to quash the order of cognizance are that there exists dispute of civil nature between the parties arising out of the partnership firm. The complainant-opposite party No. 2 since failed in his attempt to rope in petitioner . No. 1 in another criminal case which he had earlier initiated against him, he has come out with the frivolous complaint to wreck vengeance against the petitioners who are father and son and are in no way involved in the alleged offences.',
	(int) 4 => '<p>4. During the hearing of the petition and also on a perusal of the complaint/FIR and the case diary I come to find that the parties had admittedly started a real estate business and it is also admitted fact that there was a partnership deed executed by the parties to the said partnership firm on 1.8.1998 where this petitioner No. l Krushna Chandra Sahu, A. Ranga Rao, the complainant, Rajendra Kumar Sahu, Basudev Panda, Pravakar Sabat and Prafulla Kumar Sahu were the partners. On a scrutiny of the said partnership deed which contains many clauses regarding the function of the firm, share to be contributed, role which be played by each partner have been specifically mentioned in the said deed. In clause 18 there is specific mention that any dispute or difference arising amongst the partners with respect to the construction or interpretation of the deed or any other matter relating to the partnership affairs shall be referred to arbitration under the provisions of Indian Arbitration Act by appointing Arbitrator.',
	(int) 5 => '<p>5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners argued that since undisputedly there is a partnership firm and the entire allegation of the complainant hinges round the said partnership business and when particularly there is a clause in the partnership deed that any dispute between the parties shall be referred to an Arbitrator by appointing one under the Arbitration Act, whose decision shall be final and binding on the parties to which all the partners including the complainant agreed, filing of a complaint petition on flimsy and false allegations against another partner and his son is totally unwarranted.',
	(int) 6 => '<p>6. Taking me into col.6 of the complaint petition of the complainant, learned Counsel for the petitioner pointed out that the alleged occurrence, according to the petitioner, took place on 5.2.2003 which has been mentioned in the said column. But in the said column it is also mentioned that the complainant lodged a report at Golanthara PS regarding the incident on 16.10.2002. He argued vehemently that this is itself is a glaring instance as to how the case is a false and frivolous one initiated to wreck vengeance and when the occurrence itself according to the complainant took place on 5.2.2003, report regarding such occurrence could not have been lodged at the police station on 16.10.2002. Learned counsel also took me through the statements of the other partners of the firm recorded by the I.O. under Section 161, CrPC., who have all stated that the complainant-opposite party No. 2 had dispute relating to the partnership firm with petitioner No. 1 Krushna Chandra Sahu for non-contribution of Rs. l lakh to the firm by complainant-opposite party No. 2. He further took me to the case diary wherein during the investigation of the case the I.O. has categorically mentioned that during the year 2002, due to misunderstanding that prevailed between the parties, the dispute arising out of the partnership firm and the contribution to the same the complainant-opposite party No. 2 reported on 17.10.2002 and 20.1.2003 and petitioner No. 1 Krushna Chandra Sahu had reported on 20.1.2003 and since the allegations related to the partnership firm and both had alleged against each other and no document could be produced to substantiate the allegations the police had made only station diary entries as the dispute was found to be civil nature. Apart from that, the parties became political rivals of each other during the Panchayat and Zilla Parishad elections, although earlier they belonged to one party. Lastly, it was submitted by learned Counsel for the petitioner that the entire episode which has been narrated in the complaint petition is the outcome of the partnership business and if the complainant had any grudge and any doubt regarding misappropriation of partnership fund by the accused petitioner No. l, he could have taken shelter in the appropriate forum by filing civil litigation. Without doing so, he has resorted to criminal prosecution on very flimsy-ground and not only that he has implicated the son of petitioner No. 1 who is an engineering student and prosecuting his study, he submitted.',
	(int) 7 => '<p>7. It is apparent on record that petitioner No. 1 is businessman and it is submitted by learned Counsel for the petitioner that he is an income tax assessee and the allegation that has been brought by the complainant in his complaint petition which was subsequently treated as FIR by order of learned Magistrate is that the petitioners obstructed the complainant on his way while he was proceeding in his motor-cycle, threatened him, dealt pushes and fist blows, criminally intimidated him and took away cash of Rs. 20,000/- from his pocket. On the face of all these earlier disputes between the parties allegations and counter allegations against each other and political rivalry and the other facts that I have discussed in the preceding paragraphs relating to. the report about this incident to the police even before it took place, makes the matter highly suspicious, rather improbable.',
	(int) 8 => '<p>8. Learned Addl. Standing Counsel appearing for the State submitted that enmity being, a double edged weapon and in the instant case when the police has submitted charge-sheet and the learned Magistrate has taken cognizance of the offence basing on the same, the order of cognizance should not be quashed as the truth or otherwise of the matter can be ascertained only after a legitimate trial of the petitioners in the Court of learned Magistrate. Learned counsel for the petitioner, on the other hand, relying on a decision reported in : 1992CriLJ527 (State of Haryana v. Ch. Bhajanlal and Ors.) submitted in the light of the said judgment that in the instant case, the FIR of the complainant, even it is taken on its face value and accepted in its entirety it does not constitute any offence or make out any case against the petitioners. He also submitted that the allegations in the complaint/FIR are so absurd and inherently improbable that on the basis of the same no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion. He vehemently urged that this criminal proceeding even manifestly attended with mala fide and the same is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wrecking vengeance on the accused-petitioners with a view to spite them due to private and personal grudge.',
	(int) 9 => '<p>9. On the admitted factual position and the constant rift between the parties which culminated out of partnership firm and subsequent political rivalry has given rise to this criminal case and the valid object behind this lame prosecution, the very nature of the material on which the structure of the prosecution rests are sufficient for this Court to quash the proceeding in the interest of justice as ends of justice are higher than the ends of mere law though justice has got to be administered according to the laws made by the Legislature. In my view, this is a fit case where the inherent power u/s 482, CrPC should be exercised to quash the proceeding as the entire prosecution case rests on false, frivolous and vexatious allegations and to allow continuance of the proceeding would be sheer misuse of the process of the Court.',
	(int) 10 => '<p>10. In the result, I quash the order of cognizance order dated 19.12.2003 in G.R. Case No. 23 of 2003 pending in the Court of J.M.F.C., Patrapur and so also the criminal proceeding.',
	(int) 11 => '<p>11. The Criminal Misc. Case is accordingly allowed.<p>',
	(int) 12 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 13
$i = (int) 1
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

1. In this Criminal Misc. Case under Section 482, Cr.P.C. the petitioners who are father and sort have prayed for quashing of the order of cognizance dated 19.12.2003 in G.R. Case No. 23 of 2003 passed by learned J.M.F.C.. Patrapur (GM). Learned Magistrate took cognizance of the offences under Sections 341, 323, 392, 506/34, IPC on the allegation of opposite party No. 2.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Context                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Krushna Chandra Sahu and anr Vs State of Orissa and anr - Citation 535665 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '535665',
			'acts' => 'Arbitration Act; <a href="/act/50902/code-of-criminal-procedure-1973-complete-act">Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1973</a> - Sections 156(3), 161 and 482; Indian Penal Code (IPC) - Sections 34, 323, 341, 392 and 506',
			'appealno' => 'Crl. Misc. Case No. 1814 of 2004',
			'appellant' => 'Krushna Chandra Sahu and anr.',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Krushna Chandra Sahu and anr. Vs. State of Orissa and anr.',
			'casenote' => 'Criminal - Cognizance - Quashing of - Section 156(3) of Code of Criminal Procedure,1973(Cr. PC) and Sections 34, 323, 341, 392 and 506 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) - Respondent and petitioners constituted partnership firm according - Petitioners misappropriated firm's money - Respondent approached police for lodging FIR against petitioners - Police refused to lodged FIR - Respondent filed complaint before Magistrate under Section 156(3) of Cr. P. C. - Magistrate allowed complaint and directed police to lodge FIR - Police officer lodged FIR against petitioners for commission of offence under Sections 341, 323, 392 and 506/34 of IPC and conducted investigation - On completion of investigation, police submitted charge sheet and Magistrate took cognizance of offence against petitioners - Hence, present writ petition filed seeking quashment of cognizance taken - Held, from facts and available material on record it established that respondent falsely implicated petitioners in present case due to dispute arose between them in relation to partnership firm running by them - Sufficient ground exist behind present lame prosecution and sufficient reasons and evidences exist to quash the same - Accordingly, writ petition allowed and order of cognizance quashed  - LABOUR & SERVICES 
Pay Scale:[Tarun Chatterjee & R.M. Lodha,JJ] Fixation - Orissa Service Code (1939), Rule 74(b)  Promotion - Government servant, by virtue of Rule 74(b), gets higher pay than what he was getting immediately before his promotion - Circular Dated 19.3.1983 modifying earlier Circular Dated 18.6.1982 resulting in  reduction of pay of employee on promotion  Held, It is not legal. Statutory Rules cannot be altered or amended by such Executive orders or Circulars or Instructions nor can they replace Statutory Rules.
 -  2 since failed in his attempt to rope in petitioner .No.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '(State of Haryana v. Ch. Bhajanlal and Ors.;',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => ' R.K. Nayak,;P.C. Jena
and;S.P. Dash, Advs.',
			'counseldef' => ' Addl. Standing Counsel for O.P. No. 1 and; R.K. Nanda, Adv. for O.P. No. 2',
			'court' => 'Orissa',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2005-10-07',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => ' A.K. Samantaray, J.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">A.K. Samantaray, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. In this Criminal Misc. Case under Section 482, Cr.P.C. the petitioners who are father and sort have prayed for quashing of the order of cognizance dated 19.12.2003 in G.R. Case No. 23 of 2003 passed by learned J.M.F.C.. Patrapur (GM). Learned Magistrate took cognizance of the offences under Sections 341, 323, 392, 506/34, IPC on the allegation of opposite party No. 2.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The prosecution case, as it appears from the complaint petition which was subsequently treated as FIR as per the direction of the learned Magistrate under Section 156(3), CrPC, in short is that the complainant-opposite party No. 2 A. Ranga Rao. petitioner No. 1 Krushna Chandra Sahu, Rajendra Kumar Sahu. Basudev Panda. Pravakar Sabat and Prafulla Kumar Sahu constituted a firm in the name and style of 'Madhupriya Estate'. They also executed a partnership deed on 1.8,1998 and according to the terms of the partnership deed they had to share the capital. It is alleged that petitioner No. 1 Krushna Chandra Sahu did not render any account, income and expenditure of the firm to the complainant-partner A. Ranga Rao, For this act of petitioner No. 1 the relationship between the complainant and the petitioner No. 1 soured. When the complainant insisted for rendering accounts petitioner No. 1 did not give the same and misappropriated the firm's money. It is also alleged that the complainant had reported the matter on 15.10.2002 at Golanthara PS, but the police did not take any action on the matter. It is also alleged in the complaint petition that on 5.2.2003 both the petitioner came in a Motor-cycle, rebuked the complainant, threatened him. dealt fist blows and took away cash of Rs. 20,000/- from his pocket when he was proceeding on the canal road towards Berhampur town. On these allegations a complaint petition was filed alleging further that the complainant had been to the police and the police called him 4-5 times, but ultimately did not take any action. The said complaint petition filed before the learned Magistrate on 17.2.2003 was registered as ICC No. 2/2003 and subsequently the learned Magistrate forwarded the complaint petition to the OIC. Golanthara PS to treat the same as FIR under Section 156(3). CrPC. and to proceed with the same in accordance with law. On receipt of the said complaint from the Court the Golanthara police treated the same as FIR, registered Golanthara PS case No. 98/ 2003 for the offence under Sections 341, 323, 392 and 506/34 IPC and proceeded with the investigation and on completion of the investigation submitted charge-sheet. Although there was no legal material available/collected during the course of the investigation and the learned Magistrate after receipt of the charge-sheet without application of his judicial mind and without considering the backdrop which resulted in the initiation of the case against the petitioners, took cognizance of the offence it is alleged.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. The salient grounds taken by the petitioners in this application' under Section 482, CrPC to quash the order of cognizance are that there exists dispute of civil nature between the parties arising out of the partnership firm. The complainant-opposite party No. 2 since failed in his attempt to rope in petitioner . No. 1 in another criminal case which he had earlier initiated against him, he has come out with the frivolous complaint to wreck vengeance against the petitioners who are father and son and are in no way involved in the alleged offences.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. During the hearing of the petition and also on a perusal of the complaint/FIR and the case diary I come to find that the parties had admittedly started a real estate business and it is also admitted fact that there was a partnership deed executed by the parties to the said partnership firm on 1.8.1998 where this petitioner No. l Krushna Chandra Sahu, A. Ranga Rao, the complainant, Rajendra Kumar Sahu, Basudev Panda, Pravakar Sabat and Prafulla Kumar Sahu were the partners. On a scrutiny of the said partnership deed which contains many clauses regarding the function of the firm, share to be contributed, role which be played by each partner have been specifically mentioned in the said deed. In clause 18 there is specific mention that any dispute or difference arising amongst the partners with respect to the construction or interpretation of the deed or any other matter relating to the partnership affairs shall be referred to arbitration under the provisions of Indian Arbitration Act by appointing Arbitrator.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners argued that since undisputedly there is a partnership firm and the entire allegation of the complainant hinges round the said partnership business and when particularly there is a clause in the partnership deed that any dispute between the parties shall be referred to an Arbitrator by appointing one under the Arbitration Act, whose decision shall be final and binding on the parties to which all the partners including the complainant agreed, filing of a complaint petition on flimsy and false allegations against another partner and his son is totally unwarranted.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. Taking me into col.6 of the complaint petition of the complainant, learned Counsel for the petitioner pointed out that the alleged occurrence, according to the petitioner, took place on 5.2.2003 which has been mentioned in the said column. But in the said column it is also mentioned that the complainant lodged a report at Golanthara PS regarding the incident on 16.10.2002. He argued vehemently that this is itself is a glaring instance as to how the case is a false and frivolous one initiated to wreck vengeance and when the occurrence itself according to the complainant took place on 5.2.2003, report regarding such occurrence could not have been lodged at the police station on 16.10.2002. Learned counsel also took me through the statements of the other partners of the firm recorded by the I.O. under Section 161, CrPC., who have all stated that the complainant-opposite party No. 2 had dispute relating to the partnership firm with petitioner No. 1 Krushna Chandra Sahu for non-contribution of Rs. l lakh to the firm by complainant-opposite party No. 2. He further took me to the case diary wherein during the investigation of the case the I.O. has categorically mentioned that during the year 2002, due to misunderstanding that prevailed between the parties, the dispute arising out of the partnership firm and the contribution to the same the complainant-opposite party No. 2 reported on 17.10.2002 and 20.1.2003 and petitioner No. 1 Krushna Chandra Sahu had reported on 20.1.2003 and since the allegations related to the partnership firm and both had alleged against each other and no document could be produced to substantiate the allegations the police had made only station diary entries as the dispute was found to be civil nature. Apart from that, the parties became political rivals of each other during the Panchayat and Zilla Parishad elections, although earlier they belonged to one party. Lastly, it was submitted by learned Counsel for the petitioner that the entire episode which has been narrated in the complaint petition is the outcome of the partnership business and if the complainant had any grudge and any doubt regarding misappropriation of partnership fund by the accused petitioner No. l, he could have taken shelter in the appropriate forum by filing civil litigation. Without doing so, he has resorted to criminal prosecution on very flimsy-ground and not only that he has implicated the son of petitioner No. 1 who is an engineering student and prosecuting his study, he submitted.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. It is apparent on record that petitioner No. 1 is businessman and it is submitted by learned Counsel for the petitioner that he is an income tax assessee and the allegation that has been brought by the complainant in his complaint petition which was subsequently treated as FIR by order of learned Magistrate is that the petitioners obstructed the complainant on his way while he was proceeding in his motor-cycle, threatened him, dealt pushes and fist blows, criminally intimidated him and took away cash of Rs. 20,000/- from his pocket. On the face of all these earlier disputes between the parties allegations and counter allegations against each other and political rivalry and the other facts that I have discussed in the preceding paragraphs relating to. the report about this incident to the police even before it took place, makes the matter highly suspicious, rather improbable.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. Learned Addl. Standing Counsel appearing for the State submitted that enmity being, a double edged weapon and in the instant case when the police has submitted charge-sheet and the learned Magistrate has taken cognizance of the offence basing on the same, the order of cognizance should not be quashed as the truth or otherwise of the matter can be ascertained only after a legitimate trial of the petitioners in the Court of learned Magistrate. Learned counsel for the petitioner, on the other hand, relying on a decision reported in : 1992CriLJ527 (State of Haryana v. Ch. Bhajanlal and Ors.) submitted in the light of the said judgment that in the instant case, the FIR of the complainant, even it is taken on its face value and accepted in its entirety it does not constitute any offence or make out any case against the petitioners. He also submitted that the allegations in the complaint/FIR are so absurd and inherently improbable that on the basis of the same no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion. He vehemently urged that this criminal proceeding even manifestly attended with mala fide and the same is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wrecking vengeance on the accused-petitioners with a view to spite them due to private and personal grudge.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. On the admitted factual position and the constant rift between the parties which culminated out of partnership firm and subsequent political rivalry has given rise to this criminal case and the valid object behind this lame prosecution, the very nature of the material on which the structure of the prosecution rests are sufficient for this Court to quash the proceeding in the interest of justice as ends of justice are higher than the ends of mere law though justice has got to be administered according to the laws made by the Legislature. In my view, this is a fit case where the inherent power u/s 482, CrPC should be exercised to quash the proceeding as the entire prosecution case rests on false, frivolous and vexatious allegations and to allow continuance of the proceeding would be sheer misuse of the process of the Court.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. In the result, I quash the order of cognizance order dated 19.12.2003 in G.R. Case No. 23 of 2003 pending in the Court of J.M.F.C., Patrapur and so also the criminal proceeding.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">11. The Criminal Misc. Case is accordingly allowed.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '2005(II)OLR793',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'State of Orissa and anr.',
			'sub' => 'Criminal',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'krushna-chandra-sahu-vs-state-orissa',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '535665',
		(int) 1 => 'krushna-chandra-sahu-vs-state-orissa'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Krushna Chandra Sahu and anr Vs State of Orissa and anr - Citation 535665 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '535665',
		'acts' => 'Arbitration Act; <a href="/act/50902/code-of-criminal-procedure-1973-complete-act">Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1973</a> - Sections 156(3), 161 and 482; Indian Penal Code (IPC) - Sections 34, 323, 341, 392 and 506',
		'appealno' => 'Crl. Misc. Case No. 1814 of 2004',
		'appellant' => 'Krushna Chandra Sahu and anr.',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Krushna Chandra Sahu and anr. Vs. State of Orissa and anr.',
		'casenote' => 'Criminal - Cognizance - Quashing of - Section 156(3) of Code of Criminal Procedure,1973(Cr. PC) and Sections 34, 323, 341, 392 and 506 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) - Respondent and petitioners constituted partnership firm according - Petitioners misappropriated firm's money - Respondent approached police for lodging FIR against petitioners - Police refused to lodged FIR - Respondent filed complaint before Magistrate under Section 156(3) of Cr. P. C. - Magistrate allowed complaint and directed police to lodge FIR - Police officer lodged FIR against petitioners for commission of offence under Sections 341, 323, 392 and 506/34 of IPC and conducted investigation - On completion of investigation, police submitted charge sheet and Magistrate took cognizance of offence against petitioners - Hence, present writ petition filed seeking quashment of cognizance taken - Held, from facts and available material on record it established that respondent falsely implicated petitioners in present case due to dispute arose between them in relation to partnership firm running by them - Sufficient ground exist behind present lame prosecution and sufficient reasons and evidences exist to quash the same - Accordingly, writ petition allowed and order of cognizance quashed  - LABOUR & SERVICES 
Pay Scale:[Tarun Chatterjee & R.M. Lodha,JJ] Fixation - Orissa Service Code (1939), Rule 74(b)  Promotion - Government servant, by virtue of Rule 74(b), gets higher pay than what he was getting immediately before his promotion - Circular Dated 19.3.1983 modifying earlier Circular Dated 18.6.1982 resulting in  reduction of pay of employee on promotion  Held, It is not legal. Statutory Rules cannot be altered or amended by such Executive orders or Circulars or Instructions nor can they replace Statutory Rules.
 -  2 since failed in his attempt to rope in petitioner .No.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '(State of Haryana v. Ch. Bhajanlal and Ors.;',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => ' R.K. Nayak,;P.C. Jena
and;S.P. Dash, Advs.',
		'counseldef' => ' Addl. Standing Counsel for O.P. No. 1 and; R.K. Nanda, Adv. for O.P. No. 2',
		'court' => 'Orissa',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2005-10-07',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => ' A.K. Samantaray, J.',
		'judgement' => '<p>A.K. Samantaray, J.</p><p>1. In this Criminal Misc. Case under Section 482, Cr.P.C. the petitioners who are father and sort have prayed for quashing of the order of cognizance dated 19.12.2003 in G.R. Case No. 23 of 2003 passed by learned J.M.F.C.. Patrapur (GM). Learned Magistrate took cognizance of the offences under Sections 341, 323, 392, 506/34, IPC on the allegation of opposite party No. 2.</p><p>2. The prosecution case, as it appears from the complaint petition which was subsequently treated as FIR as per the direction of the learned Magistrate under Section 156(3), CrPC, in short is that the complainant-opposite party No. 2 A. Ranga Rao. petitioner No. 1 Krushna Chandra Sahu, Rajendra Kumar Sahu. Basudev Panda. Pravakar Sabat and Prafulla Kumar Sahu constituted a firm in the name and style of 'Madhupriya Estate'. They also executed a partnership deed on 1.8,1998 and according to the terms of the partnership deed they had to share the capital. It is alleged that petitioner No. 1 Krushna Chandra Sahu did not render any account, income and expenditure of the firm to the complainant-partner A. Ranga Rao, For this act of petitioner No. 1 the relationship between the complainant and the petitioner No. 1 soured. When the complainant insisted for rendering accounts petitioner No. 1 did not give the same and misappropriated the firm's money. It is also alleged that the complainant had reported the matter on 15.10.2002 at Golanthara PS, but the police did not take any action on the matter. It is also alleged in the complaint petition that on 5.2.2003 both the petitioner came in a Motor-cycle, rebuked the complainant, threatened him. dealt fist blows and took away cash of Rs. 20,000/- from his pocket when he was proceeding on the canal road towards Berhampur town. On these allegations a complaint petition was filed alleging further that the complainant had been to the police and the police called him 4-5 times, but ultimately did not take any action. The said complaint petition filed before the learned Magistrate on 17.2.2003 was registered as ICC No. 2/2003 and subsequently the learned Magistrate forwarded the complaint petition to the OIC. Golanthara PS to treat the same as FIR under Section 156(3). CrPC. and to proceed with the same in accordance with law. On receipt of the said complaint from the Court the Golanthara police treated the same as FIR, registered Golanthara PS case No. 98/ 2003 for the offence under Sections 341, 323, 392 and 506/34 IPC and proceeded with the investigation and on completion of the investigation submitted charge-sheet. Although there was no legal material available/collected during the course of the investigation and the learned Magistrate after receipt of the charge-sheet without application of his judicial mind and without considering the backdrop which resulted in the initiation of the case against the petitioners, took cognizance of the offence it is alleged.</p><p>3. The salient grounds taken by the petitioners in this application' under Section 482, CrPC to quash the order of cognizance are that there exists dispute of civil nature between the parties arising out of the partnership firm. The complainant-opposite party No. 2 since failed in his attempt to rope in petitioner . No. 1 in another criminal case which he had earlier initiated against him, he has come out with the frivolous complaint to wreck vengeance against the petitioners who are father and son and are in no way involved in the alleged offences.</p><p>4. During the hearing of the petition and also on a perusal of the complaint/FIR and the case diary I come to find that the parties had admittedly started a real estate business and it is also admitted fact that there was a partnership deed executed by the parties to the said partnership firm on 1.8.1998 where this petitioner No. l Krushna Chandra Sahu, A. Ranga Rao, the complainant, Rajendra Kumar Sahu, Basudev Panda, Pravakar Sabat and Prafulla Kumar Sahu were the partners. On a scrutiny of the said partnership deed which contains many clauses regarding the function of the firm, share to be contributed, role which be played by each partner have been specifically mentioned in the said deed. In clause 18 there is specific mention that any dispute or difference arising amongst the partners with respect to the construction or interpretation of the deed or any other matter relating to the partnership affairs shall be referred to arbitration under the provisions of Indian Arbitration Act by appointing Arbitrator.</p><p>5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners argued that since undisputedly there is a partnership firm and the entire allegation of the complainant hinges round the said partnership business and when particularly there is a clause in the partnership deed that any dispute between the parties shall be referred to an Arbitrator by appointing one under the Arbitration Act, whose decision shall be final and binding on the parties to which all the partners including the complainant agreed, filing of a complaint petition on flimsy and false allegations against another partner and his son is totally unwarranted.</p><p>6. Taking me into col.6 of the complaint petition of the complainant, learned Counsel for the petitioner pointed out that the alleged occurrence, according to the petitioner, took place on 5.2.2003 which has been mentioned in the said column. But in the said column it is also mentioned that the complainant lodged a report at Golanthara PS regarding the incident on 16.10.2002. He argued vehemently that this is itself is a glaring instance as to how the case is a false and frivolous one initiated to wreck vengeance and when the occurrence itself according to the complainant took place on 5.2.2003, report regarding such occurrence could not have been lodged at the police station on 16.10.2002. Learned counsel also took me through the statements of the other partners of the firm recorded by the I.O. under Section 161, CrPC., who have all stated that the complainant-opposite party No. 2 had dispute relating to the partnership firm with petitioner No. 1 Krushna Chandra Sahu for non-contribution of Rs. l lakh to the firm by complainant-opposite party No. 2. He further took me to the case diary wherein during the investigation of the case the I.O. has categorically mentioned that during the year 2002, due to misunderstanding that prevailed between the parties, the dispute arising out of the partnership firm and the contribution to the same the complainant-opposite party No. 2 reported on 17.10.2002 and 20.1.2003 and petitioner No. 1 Krushna Chandra Sahu had reported on 20.1.2003 and since the allegations related to the partnership firm and both had alleged against each other and no document could be produced to substantiate the allegations the police had made only station diary entries as the dispute was found to be civil nature. Apart from that, the parties became political rivals of each other during the Panchayat and Zilla Parishad elections, although earlier they belonged to one party. Lastly, it was submitted by learned Counsel for the petitioner that the entire episode which has been narrated in the complaint petition is the outcome of the partnership business and if the complainant had any grudge and any doubt regarding misappropriation of partnership fund by the accused petitioner No. l, he could have taken shelter in the appropriate forum by filing civil litigation. Without doing so, he has resorted to criminal prosecution on very flimsy-ground and not only that he has implicated the son of petitioner No. 1 who is an engineering student and prosecuting his study, he submitted.</p><p>7. It is apparent on record that petitioner No. 1 is businessman and it is submitted by learned Counsel for the petitioner that he is an income tax assessee and the allegation that has been brought by the complainant in his complaint petition which was subsequently treated as FIR by order of learned Magistrate is that the petitioners obstructed the complainant on his way while he was proceeding in his motor-cycle, threatened him, dealt pushes and fist blows, criminally intimidated him and took away cash of Rs. 20,000/- from his pocket. On the face of all these earlier disputes between the parties allegations and counter allegations against each other and political rivalry and the other facts that I have discussed in the preceding paragraphs relating to. the report about this incident to the police even before it took place, makes the matter highly suspicious, rather improbable.</p><p>8. Learned Addl. Standing Counsel appearing for the State submitted that enmity being, a double edged weapon and in the instant case when the police has submitted charge-sheet and the learned Magistrate has taken cognizance of the offence basing on the same, the order of cognizance should not be quashed as the truth or otherwise of the matter can be ascertained only after a legitimate trial of the petitioners in the Court of learned Magistrate. Learned counsel for the petitioner, on the other hand, relying on a decision reported in : 1992CriLJ527 (State of Haryana v. Ch. Bhajanlal and Ors.) submitted in the light of the said judgment that in the instant case, the FIR of the complainant, even it is taken on its face value and accepted in its entirety it does not constitute any offence or make out any case against the petitioners. He also submitted that the allegations in the complaint/FIR are so absurd and inherently improbable that on the basis of the same no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion. He vehemently urged that this criminal proceeding even manifestly attended with mala fide and the same is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wrecking vengeance on the accused-petitioners with a view to spite them due to private and personal grudge.</p><p>9. On the admitted factual position and the constant rift between the parties which culminated out of partnership firm and subsequent political rivalry has given rise to this criminal case and the valid object behind this lame prosecution, the very nature of the material on which the structure of the prosecution rests are sufficient for this Court to quash the proceeding in the interest of justice as ends of justice are higher than the ends of mere law though justice has got to be administered according to the laws made by the Legislature. In my view, this is a fit case where the inherent power u/s 482, CrPC should be exercised to quash the proceeding as the entire prosecution case rests on false, frivolous and vexatious allegations and to allow continuance of the proceeding would be sheer misuse of the process of the Court.</p><p>10. In the result, I quash the order of cognizance order dated 19.12.2003 in G.R. Case No. 23 of 2003 pending in the Court of J.M.F.C., Patrapur and so also the criminal proceeding.</p><p>11. The Criminal Misc. Case is accordingly allowed.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '2005(II)OLR793',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'State of Orissa and anr.',
		'sub' => 'Criminal',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'krushna-chandra-sahu-vs-state-orissa'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '535665',
	(int) 1 => 'krushna-chandra-sahu-vs-state-orissa'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/535665/krushna-chandra-sahu-vs-state-orissa'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$caseref = '(State of Haryana v. Ch. Bhajanlal and Ors.<br>'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>A.K. Samantaray, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. In this Criminal Misc. Case under Section 482, Cr.P.C. the petitioners who are father and sort have prayed for quashing of the order of cognizance dated 19.12.2003 in G.R. Case No. 23 of 2003 passed by learned J.M.F.C.. Patrapur (GM). Learned Magistrate took cognizance of the offences under Sections 341, 323, 392, 506/34, IPC on the allegation of opposite party No. 2.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. The prosecution case, as it appears from the complaint petition which was subsequently treated as FIR as per the direction of the learned Magistrate under Section 156(3), CrPC, in short is that the complainant-opposite party No. 2 A. Ranga Rao. petitioner No. 1 Krushna Chandra Sahu, Rajendra Kumar Sahu. Basudev Panda. Pravakar Sabat and Prafulla Kumar Sahu constituted a firm in the name and style of 'Madhupriya Estate'. They also executed a partnership deed on 1.8,1998 and according to the terms of the partnership deed they had to share the capital. It is alleged that petitioner No. 1 Krushna Chandra Sahu did not render any account, income and expenditure of the firm to the complainant-partner A. Ranga Rao, For this act of petitioner No. 1 the relationship between the complainant and the petitioner No. 1 soured. When the complainant insisted for rendering accounts petitioner No. 1 did not give the same and misappropriated the firm's money. It is also alleged that the complainant had reported the matter on 15.10.2002 at Golanthara PS, but the police did not take any action on the matter. It is also alleged in the complaint petition that on 5.2.2003 both the petitioner came in a Motor-cycle, rebuked the complainant, threatened him. dealt fist blows and took away cash of Rs. 20,000/- from his pocket when he was proceeding on the canal road towards Berhampur town. On these allegations a complaint petition was filed alleging further that the complainant had been to the police and the police called him 4-5 times, but ultimately did not take any action. The said complaint petition filed before the learned Magistrate on 17.2.2003 was registered as ICC No. 2/2003 and subsequently the learned Magistrate forwarded the complaint petition to the OIC. Golanthara PS to treat the same as FIR under Section 156(3). CrPC. and to proceed with the same in accordance with law. On receipt of the said complaint from the Court the Golanthara police treated the same as FIR, registered Golanthara PS case No. 98/ 2003 for the offence under Sections 341, 323, 392 and 506/34 IPC and proceeded with the investigation and on completion of the investigation submitted charge-sheet. Although there was no legal material available/collected during the course of the investigation and the learned Magistrate after receipt of the charge-sheet without application of his judicial mind and without considering the backdrop which resulted in the initiation of the case against the petitioners, took cognizance of the offence it is alleged.',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. The salient grounds taken by the petitioners in this application' under Section 482, CrPC to quash the order of cognizance are that there exists dispute of civil nature between the parties arising out of the partnership firm. The complainant-opposite party No. 2 since failed in his attempt to rope in petitioner . No. 1 in another criminal case which he had earlier initiated against him, he has come out with the frivolous complaint to wreck vengeance against the petitioners who are father and son and are in no way involved in the alleged offences.',
	(int) 4 => '<p>4. During the hearing of the petition and also on a perusal of the complaint/FIR and the case diary I come to find that the parties had admittedly started a real estate business and it is also admitted fact that there was a partnership deed executed by the parties to the said partnership firm on 1.8.1998 where this petitioner No. l Krushna Chandra Sahu, A. Ranga Rao, the complainant, Rajendra Kumar Sahu, Basudev Panda, Pravakar Sabat and Prafulla Kumar Sahu were the partners. On a scrutiny of the said partnership deed which contains many clauses regarding the function of the firm, share to be contributed, role which be played by each partner have been specifically mentioned in the said deed. In clause 18 there is specific mention that any dispute or difference arising amongst the partners with respect to the construction or interpretation of the deed or any other matter relating to the partnership affairs shall be referred to arbitration under the provisions of Indian Arbitration Act by appointing Arbitrator.',
	(int) 5 => '<p>5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners argued that since undisputedly there is a partnership firm and the entire allegation of the complainant hinges round the said partnership business and when particularly there is a clause in the partnership deed that any dispute between the parties shall be referred to an Arbitrator by appointing one under the Arbitration Act, whose decision shall be final and binding on the parties to which all the partners including the complainant agreed, filing of a complaint petition on flimsy and false allegations against another partner and his son is totally unwarranted.',
	(int) 6 => '<p>6. Taking me into col.6 of the complaint petition of the complainant, learned Counsel for the petitioner pointed out that the alleged occurrence, according to the petitioner, took place on 5.2.2003 which has been mentioned in the said column. But in the said column it is also mentioned that the complainant lodged a report at Golanthara PS regarding the incident on 16.10.2002. He argued vehemently that this is itself is a glaring instance as to how the case is a false and frivolous one initiated to wreck vengeance and when the occurrence itself according to the complainant took place on 5.2.2003, report regarding such occurrence could not have been lodged at the police station on 16.10.2002. Learned counsel also took me through the statements of the other partners of the firm recorded by the I.O. under Section 161, CrPC., who have all stated that the complainant-opposite party No. 2 had dispute relating to the partnership firm with petitioner No. 1 Krushna Chandra Sahu for non-contribution of Rs. l lakh to the firm by complainant-opposite party No. 2. He further took me to the case diary wherein during the investigation of the case the I.O. has categorically mentioned that during the year 2002, due to misunderstanding that prevailed between the parties, the dispute arising out of the partnership firm and the contribution to the same the complainant-opposite party No. 2 reported on 17.10.2002 and 20.1.2003 and petitioner No. 1 Krushna Chandra Sahu had reported on 20.1.2003 and since the allegations related to the partnership firm and both had alleged against each other and no document could be produced to substantiate the allegations the police had made only station diary entries as the dispute was found to be civil nature. Apart from that, the parties became political rivals of each other during the Panchayat and Zilla Parishad elections, although earlier they belonged to one party. Lastly, it was submitted by learned Counsel for the petitioner that the entire episode which has been narrated in the complaint petition is the outcome of the partnership business and if the complainant had any grudge and any doubt regarding misappropriation of partnership fund by the accused petitioner No. l, he could have taken shelter in the appropriate forum by filing civil litigation. Without doing so, he has resorted to criminal prosecution on very flimsy-ground and not only that he has implicated the son of petitioner No. 1 who is an engineering student and prosecuting his study, he submitted.',
	(int) 7 => '<p>7. It is apparent on record that petitioner No. 1 is businessman and it is submitted by learned Counsel for the petitioner that he is an income tax assessee and the allegation that has been brought by the complainant in his complaint petition which was subsequently treated as FIR by order of learned Magistrate is that the petitioners obstructed the complainant on his way while he was proceeding in his motor-cycle, threatened him, dealt pushes and fist blows, criminally intimidated him and took away cash of Rs. 20,000/- from his pocket. On the face of all these earlier disputes between the parties allegations and counter allegations against each other and political rivalry and the other facts that I have discussed in the preceding paragraphs relating to. the report about this incident to the police even before it took place, makes the matter highly suspicious, rather improbable.',
	(int) 8 => '<p>8. Learned Addl. Standing Counsel appearing for the State submitted that enmity being, a double edged weapon and in the instant case when the police has submitted charge-sheet and the learned Magistrate has taken cognizance of the offence basing on the same, the order of cognizance should not be quashed as the truth or otherwise of the matter can be ascertained only after a legitimate trial of the petitioners in the Court of learned Magistrate. Learned counsel for the petitioner, on the other hand, relying on a decision reported in : 1992CriLJ527 (State of Haryana v. Ch. Bhajanlal and Ors.) submitted in the light of the said judgment that in the instant case, the FIR of the complainant, even it is taken on its face value and accepted in its entirety it does not constitute any offence or make out any case against the petitioners. He also submitted that the allegations in the complaint/FIR are so absurd and inherently improbable that on the basis of the same no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion. He vehemently urged that this criminal proceeding even manifestly attended with mala fide and the same is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wrecking vengeance on the accused-petitioners with a view to spite them due to private and personal grudge.',
	(int) 9 => '<p>9. On the admitted factual position and the constant rift between the parties which culminated out of partnership firm and subsequent political rivalry has given rise to this criminal case and the valid object behind this lame prosecution, the very nature of the material on which the structure of the prosecution rests are sufficient for this Court to quash the proceeding in the interest of justice as ends of justice are higher than the ends of mere law though justice has got to be administered according to the laws made by the Legislature. In my view, this is a fit case where the inherent power u/s 482, CrPC should be exercised to quash the proceeding as the entire prosecution case rests on false, frivolous and vexatious allegations and to allow continuance of the proceeding would be sheer misuse of the process of the Court.',
	(int) 10 => '<p>10. In the result, I quash the order of cognizance order dated 19.12.2003 in G.R. Case No. 23 of 2003 pending in the Court of J.M.F.C., Patrapur and so also the criminal proceeding.',
	(int) 11 => '<p>11. The Criminal Misc. Case is accordingly allowed.<p>',
	(int) 12 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 13
$i = (int) 2
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

2. The prosecution case, as it appears from the complaint petition which was subsequently treated as FIR as per the direction of the learned Magistrate under Section 156(3), CrPC, in short is that the complainant-opposite party No. 2 A. Ranga Rao. petitioner No. 1 Krushna Chandra Sahu, Rajendra Kumar Sahu. Basudev Panda. Pravakar Sabat and Prafulla Kumar Sahu constituted a firm in the name and style of 'Madhupriya Estate'. They also executed a partnership deed on 1.8,1998 and according to the terms of the partnership deed they had to share the capital. It is alleged that petitioner No. 1 Krushna Chandra Sahu did not render any account, income and expenditure of the firm to the complainant-partner A. Ranga Rao, For this act of petitioner No. 1 the relationship between the complainant and the petitioner No. 1 soured. When the complainant insisted for rendering accounts petitioner No. 1 did not give the same and misappropriated the firm's money. It is also alleged that the complainant had reported the matter on 15.10.2002 at Golanthara PS, but the police did not take any action on the matter. It is also alleged in the complaint petition that on 5.2.2003 both the petitioner came in a Motor-cycle, rebuked the complainant, threatened him. dealt fist blows and took away cash of Rs. 20,000/- from his pocket when he was proceeding on the canal road towards Berhampur town. On these allegations a complaint petition was filed alleging further that the complainant had been to the police and the police called him 4-5 times, but ultimately did not take any action. The said complaint petition filed before the learned Magistrate on 17.2.2003 was registered as ICC No. 2/2003 and subsequently the learned Magistrate forwarded the complaint petition to the OIC. Golanthara PS to treat the same as FIR under Section 156(3). CrPC. and to proceed with the same in accordance with law. On receipt of the said complaint from the Court the Golanthara police treated the same as FIR, registered Golanthara PS case No. 98/ 2003 for the offence under Sections 341, 323, 392 and 506/34 IPC and proceeded with the investigation and on completion of the investigation submitted charge-sheet. Although there was no legal material available/collected during the course of the investigation and the learned Magistrate after receipt of the charge-sheet without application of his judicial mind and without considering the backdrop which resulted in the initiation of the case against the petitioners, took cognizance of the offence it is alleged.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Context                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Krushna Chandra Sahu and anr Vs State of Orissa and anr - Citation 535665 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '535665',
			'acts' => 'Arbitration Act; <a href="/act/50902/code-of-criminal-procedure-1973-complete-act">Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1973</a> - Sections 156(3), 161 and 482; Indian Penal Code (IPC) - Sections 34, 323, 341, 392 and 506',
			'appealno' => 'Crl. Misc. Case No. 1814 of 2004',
			'appellant' => 'Krushna Chandra Sahu and anr.',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Krushna Chandra Sahu and anr. Vs. State of Orissa and anr.',
			'casenote' => 'Criminal - Cognizance - Quashing of - Section 156(3) of Code of Criminal Procedure,1973(Cr. PC) and Sections 34, 323, 341, 392 and 506 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) - Respondent and petitioners constituted partnership firm according - Petitioners misappropriated firm's money - Respondent approached police for lodging FIR against petitioners - Police refused to lodged FIR - Respondent filed complaint before Magistrate under Section 156(3) of Cr. P. C. - Magistrate allowed complaint and directed police to lodge FIR - Police officer lodged FIR against petitioners for commission of offence under Sections 341, 323, 392 and 506/34 of IPC and conducted investigation - On completion of investigation, police submitted charge sheet and Magistrate took cognizance of offence against petitioners - Hence, present writ petition filed seeking quashment of cognizance taken - Held, from facts and available material on record it established that respondent falsely implicated petitioners in present case due to dispute arose between them in relation to partnership firm running by them - Sufficient ground exist behind present lame prosecution and sufficient reasons and evidences exist to quash the same - Accordingly, writ petition allowed and order of cognizance quashed  - LABOUR & SERVICES 
Pay Scale:[Tarun Chatterjee & R.M. Lodha,JJ] Fixation - Orissa Service Code (1939), Rule 74(b)  Promotion - Government servant, by virtue of Rule 74(b), gets higher pay than what he was getting immediately before his promotion - Circular Dated 19.3.1983 modifying earlier Circular Dated 18.6.1982 resulting in  reduction of pay of employee on promotion  Held, It is not legal. Statutory Rules cannot be altered or amended by such Executive orders or Circulars or Instructions nor can they replace Statutory Rules.
 -  2 since failed in his attempt to rope in petitioner .No.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '(State of Haryana v. Ch. Bhajanlal and Ors.;',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => ' R.K. Nayak,;P.C. Jena
and;S.P. Dash, Advs.',
			'counseldef' => ' Addl. Standing Counsel for O.P. No. 1 and; R.K. Nanda, Adv. for O.P. No. 2',
			'court' => 'Orissa',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2005-10-07',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => ' A.K. Samantaray, J.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">A.K. Samantaray, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. In this Criminal Misc. Case under Section 482, Cr.P.C. the petitioners who are father and sort have prayed for quashing of the order of cognizance dated 19.12.2003 in G.R. Case No. 23 of 2003 passed by learned J.M.F.C.. Patrapur (GM). Learned Magistrate took cognizance of the offences under Sections 341, 323, 392, 506/34, IPC on the allegation of opposite party No. 2.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The prosecution case, as it appears from the complaint petition which was subsequently treated as FIR as per the direction of the learned Magistrate under Section 156(3), CrPC, in short is that the complainant-opposite party No. 2 A. Ranga Rao. petitioner No. 1 Krushna Chandra Sahu, Rajendra Kumar Sahu. Basudev Panda. Pravakar Sabat and Prafulla Kumar Sahu constituted a firm in the name and style of 'Madhupriya Estate'. They also executed a partnership deed on 1.8,1998 and according to the terms of the partnership deed they had to share the capital. It is alleged that petitioner No. 1 Krushna Chandra Sahu did not render any account, income and expenditure of the firm to the complainant-partner A. Ranga Rao, For this act of petitioner No. 1 the relationship between the complainant and the petitioner No. 1 soured. When the complainant insisted for rendering accounts petitioner No. 1 did not give the same and misappropriated the firm's money. It is also alleged that the complainant had reported the matter on 15.10.2002 at Golanthara PS, but the police did not take any action on the matter. It is also alleged in the complaint petition that on 5.2.2003 both the petitioner came in a Motor-cycle, rebuked the complainant, threatened him. dealt fist blows and took away cash of Rs. 20,000/- from his pocket when he was proceeding on the canal road towards Berhampur town. On these allegations a complaint petition was filed alleging further that the complainant had been to the police and the police called him 4-5 times, but ultimately did not take any action. The said complaint petition filed before the learned Magistrate on 17.2.2003 was registered as ICC No. 2/2003 and subsequently the learned Magistrate forwarded the complaint petition to the OIC. Golanthara PS to treat the same as FIR under Section 156(3). CrPC. and to proceed with the same in accordance with law. On receipt of the said complaint from the Court the Golanthara police treated the same as FIR, registered Golanthara PS case No. 98/ 2003 for the offence under Sections 341, 323, 392 and 506/34 IPC and proceeded with the investigation and on completion of the investigation submitted charge-sheet. Although there was no legal material available/collected during the course of the investigation and the learned Magistrate after receipt of the charge-sheet without application of his judicial mind and without considering the backdrop which resulted in the initiation of the case against the petitioners, took cognizance of the offence it is alleged.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. The salient grounds taken by the petitioners in this application' under Section 482, CrPC to quash the order of cognizance are that there exists dispute of civil nature between the parties arising out of the partnership firm. The complainant-opposite party No. 2 since failed in his attempt to rope in petitioner . No. 1 in another criminal case which he had earlier initiated against him, he has come out with the frivolous complaint to wreck vengeance against the petitioners who are father and son and are in no way involved in the alleged offences.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. During the hearing of the petition and also on a perusal of the complaint/FIR and the case diary I come to find that the parties had admittedly started a real estate business and it is also admitted fact that there was a partnership deed executed by the parties to the said partnership firm on 1.8.1998 where this petitioner No. l Krushna Chandra Sahu, A. Ranga Rao, the complainant, Rajendra Kumar Sahu, Basudev Panda, Pravakar Sabat and Prafulla Kumar Sahu were the partners. On a scrutiny of the said partnership deed which contains many clauses regarding the function of the firm, share to be contributed, role which be played by each partner have been specifically mentioned in the said deed. In clause 18 there is specific mention that any dispute or difference arising amongst the partners with respect to the construction or interpretation of the deed or any other matter relating to the partnership affairs shall be referred to arbitration under the provisions of Indian Arbitration Act by appointing Arbitrator.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners argued that since undisputedly there is a partnership firm and the entire allegation of the complainant hinges round the said partnership business and when particularly there is a clause in the partnership deed that any dispute between the parties shall be referred to an Arbitrator by appointing one under the Arbitration Act, whose decision shall be final and binding on the parties to which all the partners including the complainant agreed, filing of a complaint petition on flimsy and false allegations against another partner and his son is totally unwarranted.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. Taking me into col.6 of the complaint petition of the complainant, learned Counsel for the petitioner pointed out that the alleged occurrence, according to the petitioner, took place on 5.2.2003 which has been mentioned in the said column. But in the said column it is also mentioned that the complainant lodged a report at Golanthara PS regarding the incident on 16.10.2002. He argued vehemently that this is itself is a glaring instance as to how the case is a false and frivolous one initiated to wreck vengeance and when the occurrence itself according to the complainant took place on 5.2.2003, report regarding such occurrence could not have been lodged at the police station on 16.10.2002. Learned counsel also took me through the statements of the other partners of the firm recorded by the I.O. under Section 161, CrPC., who have all stated that the complainant-opposite party No. 2 had dispute relating to the partnership firm with petitioner No. 1 Krushna Chandra Sahu for non-contribution of Rs. l lakh to the firm by complainant-opposite party No. 2. He further took me to the case diary wherein during the investigation of the case the I.O. has categorically mentioned that during the year 2002, due to misunderstanding that prevailed between the parties, the dispute arising out of the partnership firm and the contribution to the same the complainant-opposite party No. 2 reported on 17.10.2002 and 20.1.2003 and petitioner No. 1 Krushna Chandra Sahu had reported on 20.1.2003 and since the allegations related to the partnership firm and both had alleged against each other and no document could be produced to substantiate the allegations the police had made only station diary entries as the dispute was found to be civil nature. Apart from that, the parties became political rivals of each other during the Panchayat and Zilla Parishad elections, although earlier they belonged to one party. Lastly, it was submitted by learned Counsel for the petitioner that the entire episode which has been narrated in the complaint petition is the outcome of the partnership business and if the complainant had any grudge and any doubt regarding misappropriation of partnership fund by the accused petitioner No. l, he could have taken shelter in the appropriate forum by filing civil litigation. Without doing so, he has resorted to criminal prosecution on very flimsy-ground and not only that he has implicated the son of petitioner No. 1 who is an engineering student and prosecuting his study, he submitted.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. It is apparent on record that petitioner No. 1 is businessman and it is submitted by learned Counsel for the petitioner that he is an income tax assessee and the allegation that has been brought by the complainant in his complaint petition which was subsequently treated as FIR by order of learned Magistrate is that the petitioners obstructed the complainant on his way while he was proceeding in his motor-cycle, threatened him, dealt pushes and fist blows, criminally intimidated him and took away cash of Rs. 20,000/- from his pocket. On the face of all these earlier disputes between the parties allegations and counter allegations against each other and political rivalry and the other facts that I have discussed in the preceding paragraphs relating to. the report about this incident to the police even before it took place, makes the matter highly suspicious, rather improbable.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. Learned Addl. Standing Counsel appearing for the State submitted that enmity being, a double edged weapon and in the instant case when the police has submitted charge-sheet and the learned Magistrate has taken cognizance of the offence basing on the same, the order of cognizance should not be quashed as the truth or otherwise of the matter can be ascertained only after a legitimate trial of the petitioners in the Court of learned Magistrate. Learned counsel for the petitioner, on the other hand, relying on a decision reported in : 1992CriLJ527 (State of Haryana v. Ch. Bhajanlal and Ors.) submitted in the light of the said judgment that in the instant case, the FIR of the complainant, even it is taken on its face value and accepted in its entirety it does not constitute any offence or make out any case against the petitioners. He also submitted that the allegations in the complaint/FIR are so absurd and inherently improbable that on the basis of the same no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion. He vehemently urged that this criminal proceeding even manifestly attended with mala fide and the same is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wrecking vengeance on the accused-petitioners with a view to spite them due to private and personal grudge.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. On the admitted factual position and the constant rift between the parties which culminated out of partnership firm and subsequent political rivalry has given rise to this criminal case and the valid object behind this lame prosecution, the very nature of the material on which the structure of the prosecution rests are sufficient for this Court to quash the proceeding in the interest of justice as ends of justice are higher than the ends of mere law though justice has got to be administered according to the laws made by the Legislature. In my view, this is a fit case where the inherent power u/s 482, CrPC should be exercised to quash the proceeding as the entire prosecution case rests on false, frivolous and vexatious allegations and to allow continuance of the proceeding would be sheer misuse of the process of the Court.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. In the result, I quash the order of cognizance order dated 19.12.2003 in G.R. Case No. 23 of 2003 pending in the Court of J.M.F.C., Patrapur and so also the criminal proceeding.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">11. The Criminal Misc. Case is accordingly allowed.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '2005(II)OLR793',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'State of Orissa and anr.',
			'sub' => 'Criminal',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'krushna-chandra-sahu-vs-state-orissa',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '535665',
		(int) 1 => 'krushna-chandra-sahu-vs-state-orissa'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Krushna Chandra Sahu and anr Vs State of Orissa and anr - Citation 535665 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '535665',
		'acts' => 'Arbitration Act; <a href="/act/50902/code-of-criminal-procedure-1973-complete-act">Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1973</a> - Sections 156(3), 161 and 482; Indian Penal Code (IPC) - Sections 34, 323, 341, 392 and 506',
		'appealno' => 'Crl. Misc. Case No. 1814 of 2004',
		'appellant' => 'Krushna Chandra Sahu and anr.',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Krushna Chandra Sahu and anr. Vs. State of Orissa and anr.',
		'casenote' => 'Criminal - Cognizance - Quashing of - Section 156(3) of Code of Criminal Procedure,1973(Cr. PC) and Sections 34, 323, 341, 392 and 506 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) - Respondent and petitioners constituted partnership firm according - Petitioners misappropriated firm's money - Respondent approached police for lodging FIR against petitioners - Police refused to lodged FIR - Respondent filed complaint before Magistrate under Section 156(3) of Cr. P. C. - Magistrate allowed complaint and directed police to lodge FIR - Police officer lodged FIR against petitioners for commission of offence under Sections 341, 323, 392 and 506/34 of IPC and conducted investigation - On completion of investigation, police submitted charge sheet and Magistrate took cognizance of offence against petitioners - Hence, present writ petition filed seeking quashment of cognizance taken - Held, from facts and available material on record it established that respondent falsely implicated petitioners in present case due to dispute arose between them in relation to partnership firm running by them - Sufficient ground exist behind present lame prosecution and sufficient reasons and evidences exist to quash the same - Accordingly, writ petition allowed and order of cognizance quashed  - LABOUR & SERVICES 
Pay Scale:[Tarun Chatterjee & R.M. Lodha,JJ] Fixation - Orissa Service Code (1939), Rule 74(b)  Promotion - Government servant, by virtue of Rule 74(b), gets higher pay than what he was getting immediately before his promotion - Circular Dated 19.3.1983 modifying earlier Circular Dated 18.6.1982 resulting in  reduction of pay of employee on promotion  Held, It is not legal. Statutory Rules cannot be altered or amended by such Executive orders or Circulars or Instructions nor can they replace Statutory Rules.
 -  2 since failed in his attempt to rope in petitioner .No.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '(State of Haryana v. Ch. Bhajanlal and Ors.;',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => ' R.K. Nayak,;P.C. Jena
and;S.P. Dash, Advs.',
		'counseldef' => ' Addl. Standing Counsel for O.P. No. 1 and; R.K. Nanda, Adv. for O.P. No. 2',
		'court' => 'Orissa',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2005-10-07',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => ' A.K. Samantaray, J.',
		'judgement' => '<p>A.K. Samantaray, J.</p><p>1. In this Criminal Misc. Case under Section 482, Cr.P.C. the petitioners who are father and sort have prayed for quashing of the order of cognizance dated 19.12.2003 in G.R. Case No. 23 of 2003 passed by learned J.M.F.C.. Patrapur (GM). Learned Magistrate took cognizance of the offences under Sections 341, 323, 392, 506/34, IPC on the allegation of opposite party No. 2.</p><p>2. The prosecution case, as it appears from the complaint petition which was subsequently treated as FIR as per the direction of the learned Magistrate under Section 156(3), CrPC, in short is that the complainant-opposite party No. 2 A. Ranga Rao. petitioner No. 1 Krushna Chandra Sahu, Rajendra Kumar Sahu. Basudev Panda. Pravakar Sabat and Prafulla Kumar Sahu constituted a firm in the name and style of 'Madhupriya Estate'. They also executed a partnership deed on 1.8,1998 and according to the terms of the partnership deed they had to share the capital. It is alleged that petitioner No. 1 Krushna Chandra Sahu did not render any account, income and expenditure of the firm to the complainant-partner A. Ranga Rao, For this act of petitioner No. 1 the relationship between the complainant and the petitioner No. 1 soured. When the complainant insisted for rendering accounts petitioner No. 1 did not give the same and misappropriated the firm's money. It is also alleged that the complainant had reported the matter on 15.10.2002 at Golanthara PS, but the police did not take any action on the matter. It is also alleged in the complaint petition that on 5.2.2003 both the petitioner came in a Motor-cycle, rebuked the complainant, threatened him. dealt fist blows and took away cash of Rs. 20,000/- from his pocket when he was proceeding on the canal road towards Berhampur town. On these allegations a complaint petition was filed alleging further that the complainant had been to the police and the police called him 4-5 times, but ultimately did not take any action. The said complaint petition filed before the learned Magistrate on 17.2.2003 was registered as ICC No. 2/2003 and subsequently the learned Magistrate forwarded the complaint petition to the OIC. Golanthara PS to treat the same as FIR under Section 156(3). CrPC. and to proceed with the same in accordance with law. On receipt of the said complaint from the Court the Golanthara police treated the same as FIR, registered Golanthara PS case No. 98/ 2003 for the offence under Sections 341, 323, 392 and 506/34 IPC and proceeded with the investigation and on completion of the investigation submitted charge-sheet. Although there was no legal material available/collected during the course of the investigation and the learned Magistrate after receipt of the charge-sheet without application of his judicial mind and without considering the backdrop which resulted in the initiation of the case against the petitioners, took cognizance of the offence it is alleged.</p><p>3. The salient grounds taken by the petitioners in this application' under Section 482, CrPC to quash the order of cognizance are that there exists dispute of civil nature between the parties arising out of the partnership firm. The complainant-opposite party No. 2 since failed in his attempt to rope in petitioner . No. 1 in another criminal case which he had earlier initiated against him, he has come out with the frivolous complaint to wreck vengeance against the petitioners who are father and son and are in no way involved in the alleged offences.</p><p>4. During the hearing of the petition and also on a perusal of the complaint/FIR and the case diary I come to find that the parties had admittedly started a real estate business and it is also admitted fact that there was a partnership deed executed by the parties to the said partnership firm on 1.8.1998 where this petitioner No. l Krushna Chandra Sahu, A. Ranga Rao, the complainant, Rajendra Kumar Sahu, Basudev Panda, Pravakar Sabat and Prafulla Kumar Sahu were the partners. On a scrutiny of the said partnership deed which contains many clauses regarding the function of the firm, share to be contributed, role which be played by each partner have been specifically mentioned in the said deed. In clause 18 there is specific mention that any dispute or difference arising amongst the partners with respect to the construction or interpretation of the deed or any other matter relating to the partnership affairs shall be referred to arbitration under the provisions of Indian Arbitration Act by appointing Arbitrator.</p><p>5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners argued that since undisputedly there is a partnership firm and the entire allegation of the complainant hinges round the said partnership business and when particularly there is a clause in the partnership deed that any dispute between the parties shall be referred to an Arbitrator by appointing one under the Arbitration Act, whose decision shall be final and binding on the parties to which all the partners including the complainant agreed, filing of a complaint petition on flimsy and false allegations against another partner and his son is totally unwarranted.</p><p>6. Taking me into col.6 of the complaint petition of the complainant, learned Counsel for the petitioner pointed out that the alleged occurrence, according to the petitioner, took place on 5.2.2003 which has been mentioned in the said column. But in the said column it is also mentioned that the complainant lodged a report at Golanthara PS regarding the incident on 16.10.2002. He argued vehemently that this is itself is a glaring instance as to how the case is a false and frivolous one initiated to wreck vengeance and when the occurrence itself according to the complainant took place on 5.2.2003, report regarding such occurrence could not have been lodged at the police station on 16.10.2002. Learned counsel also took me through the statements of the other partners of the firm recorded by the I.O. under Section 161, CrPC., who have all stated that the complainant-opposite party No. 2 had dispute relating to the partnership firm with petitioner No. 1 Krushna Chandra Sahu for non-contribution of Rs. l lakh to the firm by complainant-opposite party No. 2. He further took me to the case diary wherein during the investigation of the case the I.O. has categorically mentioned that during the year 2002, due to misunderstanding that prevailed between the parties, the dispute arising out of the partnership firm and the contribution to the same the complainant-opposite party No. 2 reported on 17.10.2002 and 20.1.2003 and petitioner No. 1 Krushna Chandra Sahu had reported on 20.1.2003 and since the allegations related to the partnership firm and both had alleged against each other and no document could be produced to substantiate the allegations the police had made only station diary entries as the dispute was found to be civil nature. Apart from that, the parties became political rivals of each other during the Panchayat and Zilla Parishad elections, although earlier they belonged to one party. Lastly, it was submitted by learned Counsel for the petitioner that the entire episode which has been narrated in the complaint petition is the outcome of the partnership business and if the complainant had any grudge and any doubt regarding misappropriation of partnership fund by the accused petitioner No. l, he could have taken shelter in the appropriate forum by filing civil litigation. Without doing so, he has resorted to criminal prosecution on very flimsy-ground and not only that he has implicated the son of petitioner No. 1 who is an engineering student and prosecuting his study, he submitted.</p><p>7. It is apparent on record that petitioner No. 1 is businessman and it is submitted by learned Counsel for the petitioner that he is an income tax assessee and the allegation that has been brought by the complainant in his complaint petition which was subsequently treated as FIR by order of learned Magistrate is that the petitioners obstructed the complainant on his way while he was proceeding in his motor-cycle, threatened him, dealt pushes and fist blows, criminally intimidated him and took away cash of Rs. 20,000/- from his pocket. On the face of all these earlier disputes between the parties allegations and counter allegations against each other and political rivalry and the other facts that I have discussed in the preceding paragraphs relating to. the report about this incident to the police even before it took place, makes the matter highly suspicious, rather improbable.</p><p>8. Learned Addl. Standing Counsel appearing for the State submitted that enmity being, a double edged weapon and in the instant case when the police has submitted charge-sheet and the learned Magistrate has taken cognizance of the offence basing on the same, the order of cognizance should not be quashed as the truth or otherwise of the matter can be ascertained only after a legitimate trial of the petitioners in the Court of learned Magistrate. Learned counsel for the petitioner, on the other hand, relying on a decision reported in : 1992CriLJ527 (State of Haryana v. Ch. Bhajanlal and Ors.) submitted in the light of the said judgment that in the instant case, the FIR of the complainant, even it is taken on its face value and accepted in its entirety it does not constitute any offence or make out any case against the petitioners. He also submitted that the allegations in the complaint/FIR are so absurd and inherently improbable that on the basis of the same no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion. He vehemently urged that this criminal proceeding even manifestly attended with mala fide and the same is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wrecking vengeance on the accused-petitioners with a view to spite them due to private and personal grudge.</p><p>9. On the admitted factual position and the constant rift between the parties which culminated out of partnership firm and subsequent political rivalry has given rise to this criminal case and the valid object behind this lame prosecution, the very nature of the material on which the structure of the prosecution rests are sufficient for this Court to quash the proceeding in the interest of justice as ends of justice are higher than the ends of mere law though justice has got to be administered according to the laws made by the Legislature. In my view, this is a fit case where the inherent power u/s 482, CrPC should be exercised to quash the proceeding as the entire prosecution case rests on false, frivolous and vexatious allegations and to allow continuance of the proceeding would be sheer misuse of the process of the Court.</p><p>10. In the result, I quash the order of cognizance order dated 19.12.2003 in G.R. Case No. 23 of 2003 pending in the Court of J.M.F.C., Patrapur and so also the criminal proceeding.</p><p>11. The Criminal Misc. Case is accordingly allowed.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '2005(II)OLR793',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'State of Orissa and anr.',
		'sub' => 'Criminal',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'krushna-chandra-sahu-vs-state-orissa'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '535665',
	(int) 1 => 'krushna-chandra-sahu-vs-state-orissa'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/535665/krushna-chandra-sahu-vs-state-orissa'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$caseref = '(State of Haryana v. Ch. Bhajanlal and Ors.<br>'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>A.K. Samantaray, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. In this Criminal Misc. Case under Section 482, Cr.P.C. the petitioners who are father and sort have prayed for quashing of the order of cognizance dated 19.12.2003 in G.R. Case No. 23 of 2003 passed by learned J.M.F.C.. Patrapur (GM). Learned Magistrate took cognizance of the offences under Sections 341, 323, 392, 506/34, IPC on the allegation of opposite party No. 2.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. The prosecution case, as it appears from the complaint petition which was subsequently treated as FIR as per the direction of the learned Magistrate under Section 156(3), CrPC, in short is that the complainant-opposite party No. 2 A. Ranga Rao. petitioner No. 1 Krushna Chandra Sahu, Rajendra Kumar Sahu. Basudev Panda. Pravakar Sabat and Prafulla Kumar Sahu constituted a firm in the name and style of 'Madhupriya Estate'. They also executed a partnership deed on 1.8,1998 and according to the terms of the partnership deed they had to share the capital. It is alleged that petitioner No. 1 Krushna Chandra Sahu did not render any account, income and expenditure of the firm to the complainant-partner A. Ranga Rao, For this act of petitioner No. 1 the relationship between the complainant and the petitioner No. 1 soured. When the complainant insisted for rendering accounts petitioner No. 1 did not give the same and misappropriated the firm's money. It is also alleged that the complainant had reported the matter on 15.10.2002 at Golanthara PS, but the police did not take any action on the matter. It is also alleged in the complaint petition that on 5.2.2003 both the petitioner came in a Motor-cycle, rebuked the complainant, threatened him. dealt fist blows and took away cash of Rs. 20,000/- from his pocket when he was proceeding on the canal road towards Berhampur town. On these allegations a complaint petition was filed alleging further that the complainant had been to the police and the police called him 4-5 times, but ultimately did not take any action. The said complaint petition filed before the learned Magistrate on 17.2.2003 was registered as ICC No. 2/2003 and subsequently the learned Magistrate forwarded the complaint petition to the OIC. Golanthara PS to treat the same as FIR under Section 156(3). CrPC. and to proceed with the same in accordance with law. On receipt of the said complaint from the Court the Golanthara police treated the same as FIR, registered Golanthara PS case No. 98/ 2003 for the offence under Sections 341, 323, 392 and 506/34 IPC and proceeded with the investigation and on completion of the investigation submitted charge-sheet. Although there was no legal material available/collected during the course of the investigation and the learned Magistrate after receipt of the charge-sheet without application of his judicial mind and without considering the backdrop which resulted in the initiation of the case against the petitioners, took cognizance of the offence it is alleged.',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. The salient grounds taken by the petitioners in this application' under Section 482, CrPC to quash the order of cognizance are that there exists dispute of civil nature between the parties arising out of the partnership firm. The complainant-opposite party No. 2 since failed in his attempt to rope in petitioner . No. 1 in another criminal case which he had earlier initiated against him, he has come out with the frivolous complaint to wreck vengeance against the petitioners who are father and son and are in no way involved in the alleged offences.',
	(int) 4 => '<p>4. During the hearing of the petition and also on a perusal of the complaint/FIR and the case diary I come to find that the parties had admittedly started a real estate business and it is also admitted fact that there was a partnership deed executed by the parties to the said partnership firm on 1.8.1998 where this petitioner No. l Krushna Chandra Sahu, A. Ranga Rao, the complainant, Rajendra Kumar Sahu, Basudev Panda, Pravakar Sabat and Prafulla Kumar Sahu were the partners. On a scrutiny of the said partnership deed which contains many clauses regarding the function of the firm, share to be contributed, role which be played by each partner have been specifically mentioned in the said deed. In clause 18 there is specific mention that any dispute or difference arising amongst the partners with respect to the construction or interpretation of the deed or any other matter relating to the partnership affairs shall be referred to arbitration under the provisions of Indian Arbitration Act by appointing Arbitrator.',
	(int) 5 => '<p>5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners argued that since undisputedly there is a partnership firm and the entire allegation of the complainant hinges round the said partnership business and when particularly there is a clause in the partnership deed that any dispute between the parties shall be referred to an Arbitrator by appointing one under the Arbitration Act, whose decision shall be final and binding on the parties to which all the partners including the complainant agreed, filing of a complaint petition on flimsy and false allegations against another partner and his son is totally unwarranted.',
	(int) 6 => '<p>6. Taking me into col.6 of the complaint petition of the complainant, learned Counsel for the petitioner pointed out that the alleged occurrence, according to the petitioner, took place on 5.2.2003 which has been mentioned in the said column. But in the said column it is also mentioned that the complainant lodged a report at Golanthara PS regarding the incident on 16.10.2002. He argued vehemently that this is itself is a glaring instance as to how the case is a false and frivolous one initiated to wreck vengeance and when the occurrence itself according to the complainant took place on 5.2.2003, report regarding such occurrence could not have been lodged at the police station on 16.10.2002. Learned counsel also took me through the statements of the other partners of the firm recorded by the I.O. under Section 161, CrPC., who have all stated that the complainant-opposite party No. 2 had dispute relating to the partnership firm with petitioner No. 1 Krushna Chandra Sahu for non-contribution of Rs. l lakh to the firm by complainant-opposite party No. 2. He further took me to the case diary wherein during the investigation of the case the I.O. has categorically mentioned that during the year 2002, due to misunderstanding that prevailed between the parties, the dispute arising out of the partnership firm and the contribution to the same the complainant-opposite party No. 2 reported on 17.10.2002 and 20.1.2003 and petitioner No. 1 Krushna Chandra Sahu had reported on 20.1.2003 and since the allegations related to the partnership firm and both had alleged against each other and no document could be produced to substantiate the allegations the police had made only station diary entries as the dispute was found to be civil nature. Apart from that, the parties became political rivals of each other during the Panchayat and Zilla Parishad elections, although earlier they belonged to one party. Lastly, it was submitted by learned Counsel for the petitioner that the entire episode which has been narrated in the complaint petition is the outcome of the partnership business and if the complainant had any grudge and any doubt regarding misappropriation of partnership fund by the accused petitioner No. l, he could have taken shelter in the appropriate forum by filing civil litigation. Without doing so, he has resorted to criminal prosecution on very flimsy-ground and not only that he has implicated the son of petitioner No. 1 who is an engineering student and prosecuting his study, he submitted.',
	(int) 7 => '<p>7. It is apparent on record that petitioner No. 1 is businessman and it is submitted by learned Counsel for the petitioner that he is an income tax assessee and the allegation that has been brought by the complainant in his complaint petition which was subsequently treated as FIR by order of learned Magistrate is that the petitioners obstructed the complainant on his way while he was proceeding in his motor-cycle, threatened him, dealt pushes and fist blows, criminally intimidated him and took away cash of Rs. 20,000/- from his pocket. On the face of all these earlier disputes between the parties allegations and counter allegations against each other and political rivalry and the other facts that I have discussed in the preceding paragraphs relating to. the report about this incident to the police even before it took place, makes the matter highly suspicious, rather improbable.',
	(int) 8 => '<p>8. Learned Addl. Standing Counsel appearing for the State submitted that enmity being, a double edged weapon and in the instant case when the police has submitted charge-sheet and the learned Magistrate has taken cognizance of the offence basing on the same, the order of cognizance should not be quashed as the truth or otherwise of the matter can be ascertained only after a legitimate trial of the petitioners in the Court of learned Magistrate. Learned counsel for the petitioner, on the other hand, relying on a decision reported in : 1992CriLJ527 (State of Haryana v. Ch. Bhajanlal and Ors.) submitted in the light of the said judgment that in the instant case, the FIR of the complainant, even it is taken on its face value and accepted in its entirety it does not constitute any offence or make out any case against the petitioners. He also submitted that the allegations in the complaint/FIR are so absurd and inherently improbable that on the basis of the same no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion. He vehemently urged that this criminal proceeding even manifestly attended with mala fide and the same is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wrecking vengeance on the accused-petitioners with a view to spite them due to private and personal grudge.',
	(int) 9 => '<p>9. On the admitted factual position and the constant rift between the parties which culminated out of partnership firm and subsequent political rivalry has given rise to this criminal case and the valid object behind this lame prosecution, the very nature of the material on which the structure of the prosecution rests are sufficient for this Court to quash the proceeding in the interest of justice as ends of justice are higher than the ends of mere law though justice has got to be administered according to the laws made by the Legislature. In my view, this is a fit case where the inherent power u/s 482, CrPC should be exercised to quash the proceeding as the entire prosecution case rests on false, frivolous and vexatious allegations and to allow continuance of the proceeding would be sheer misuse of the process of the Court.',
	(int) 10 => '<p>10. In the result, I quash the order of cognizance order dated 19.12.2003 in G.R. Case No. 23 of 2003 pending in the Court of J.M.F.C., Patrapur and so also the criminal proceeding.',
	(int) 11 => '<p>11. The Criminal Misc. Case is accordingly allowed.<p>',
	(int) 12 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 13
$i = (int) 3
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

3. The salient grounds taken by the petitioners in this application' under Section 482, CrPC to quash the order of cognizance are that there exists dispute of civil nature between the parties arising out of the partnership firm. The complainant-opposite party No. 2 since failed in his attempt to rope in petitioner . No. 1 in another criminal case which he had earlier initiated against him, he has come out with the frivolous complaint to wreck vengeance against the petitioners who are father and son and are in no way involved in the alleged offences.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Context                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Krushna Chandra Sahu and anr Vs State of Orissa and anr - Citation 535665 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '535665',
			'acts' => 'Arbitration Act; <a href="/act/50902/code-of-criminal-procedure-1973-complete-act">Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1973</a> - Sections 156(3), 161 and 482; Indian Penal Code (IPC) - Sections 34, 323, 341, 392 and 506',
			'appealno' => 'Crl. Misc. Case No. 1814 of 2004',
			'appellant' => 'Krushna Chandra Sahu and anr.',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Krushna Chandra Sahu and anr. Vs. State of Orissa and anr.',
			'casenote' => 'Criminal - Cognizance - Quashing of - Section 156(3) of Code of Criminal Procedure,1973(Cr. PC) and Sections 34, 323, 341, 392 and 506 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) - Respondent and petitioners constituted partnership firm according - Petitioners misappropriated firm's money - Respondent approached police for lodging FIR against petitioners - Police refused to lodged FIR - Respondent filed complaint before Magistrate under Section 156(3) of Cr. P. C. - Magistrate allowed complaint and directed police to lodge FIR - Police officer lodged FIR against petitioners for commission of offence under Sections 341, 323, 392 and 506/34 of IPC and conducted investigation - On completion of investigation, police submitted charge sheet and Magistrate took cognizance of offence against petitioners - Hence, present writ petition filed seeking quashment of cognizance taken - Held, from facts and available material on record it established that respondent falsely implicated petitioners in present case due to dispute arose between them in relation to partnership firm running by them - Sufficient ground exist behind present lame prosecution and sufficient reasons and evidences exist to quash the same - Accordingly, writ petition allowed and order of cognizance quashed  - LABOUR & SERVICES 
Pay Scale:[Tarun Chatterjee & R.M. Lodha,JJ] Fixation - Orissa Service Code (1939), Rule 74(b)  Promotion - Government servant, by virtue of Rule 74(b), gets higher pay than what he was getting immediately before his promotion - Circular Dated 19.3.1983 modifying earlier Circular Dated 18.6.1982 resulting in  reduction of pay of employee on promotion  Held, It is not legal. Statutory Rules cannot be altered or amended by such Executive orders or Circulars or Instructions nor can they replace Statutory Rules.
 -  2 since failed in his attempt to rope in petitioner .No.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '(State of Haryana v. Ch. Bhajanlal and Ors.;',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => ' R.K. Nayak,;P.C. Jena
and;S.P. Dash, Advs.',
			'counseldef' => ' Addl. Standing Counsel for O.P. No. 1 and; R.K. Nanda, Adv. for O.P. No. 2',
			'court' => 'Orissa',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2005-10-07',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => ' A.K. Samantaray, J.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">A.K. Samantaray, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. In this Criminal Misc. Case under Section 482, Cr.P.C. the petitioners who are father and sort have prayed for quashing of the order of cognizance dated 19.12.2003 in G.R. Case No. 23 of 2003 passed by learned J.M.F.C.. Patrapur (GM). Learned Magistrate took cognizance of the offences under Sections 341, 323, 392, 506/34, IPC on the allegation of opposite party No. 2.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The prosecution case, as it appears from the complaint petition which was subsequently treated as FIR as per the direction of the learned Magistrate under Section 156(3), CrPC, in short is that the complainant-opposite party No. 2 A. Ranga Rao. petitioner No. 1 Krushna Chandra Sahu, Rajendra Kumar Sahu. Basudev Panda. Pravakar Sabat and Prafulla Kumar Sahu constituted a firm in the name and style of 'Madhupriya Estate'. They also executed a partnership deed on 1.8,1998 and according to the terms of the partnership deed they had to share the capital. It is alleged that petitioner No. 1 Krushna Chandra Sahu did not render any account, income and expenditure of the firm to the complainant-partner A. Ranga Rao, For this act of petitioner No. 1 the relationship between the complainant and the petitioner No. 1 soured. When the complainant insisted for rendering accounts petitioner No. 1 did not give the same and misappropriated the firm's money. It is also alleged that the complainant had reported the matter on 15.10.2002 at Golanthara PS, but the police did not take any action on the matter. It is also alleged in the complaint petition that on 5.2.2003 both the petitioner came in a Motor-cycle, rebuked the complainant, threatened him. dealt fist blows and took away cash of Rs. 20,000/- from his pocket when he was proceeding on the canal road towards Berhampur town. On these allegations a complaint petition was filed alleging further that the complainant had been to the police and the police called him 4-5 times, but ultimately did not take any action. The said complaint petition filed before the learned Magistrate on 17.2.2003 was registered as ICC No. 2/2003 and subsequently the learned Magistrate forwarded the complaint petition to the OIC. Golanthara PS to treat the same as FIR under Section 156(3). CrPC. and to proceed with the same in accordance with law. On receipt of the said complaint from the Court the Golanthara police treated the same as FIR, registered Golanthara PS case No. 98/ 2003 for the offence under Sections 341, 323, 392 and 506/34 IPC and proceeded with the investigation and on completion of the investigation submitted charge-sheet. Although there was no legal material available/collected during the course of the investigation and the learned Magistrate after receipt of the charge-sheet without application of his judicial mind and without considering the backdrop which resulted in the initiation of the case against the petitioners, took cognizance of the offence it is alleged.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. The salient grounds taken by the petitioners in this application' under Section 482, CrPC to quash the order of cognizance are that there exists dispute of civil nature between the parties arising out of the partnership firm. The complainant-opposite party No. 2 since failed in his attempt to rope in petitioner . No. 1 in another criminal case which he had earlier initiated against him, he has come out with the frivolous complaint to wreck vengeance against the petitioners who are father and son and are in no way involved in the alleged offences.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. During the hearing of the petition and also on a perusal of the complaint/FIR and the case diary I come to find that the parties had admittedly started a real estate business and it is also admitted fact that there was a partnership deed executed by the parties to the said partnership firm on 1.8.1998 where this petitioner No. l Krushna Chandra Sahu, A. Ranga Rao, the complainant, Rajendra Kumar Sahu, Basudev Panda, Pravakar Sabat and Prafulla Kumar Sahu were the partners. On a scrutiny of the said partnership deed which contains many clauses regarding the function of the firm, share to be contributed, role which be played by each partner have been specifically mentioned in the said deed. In clause 18 there is specific mention that any dispute or difference arising amongst the partners with respect to the construction or interpretation of the deed or any other matter relating to the partnership affairs shall be referred to arbitration under the provisions of Indian Arbitration Act by appointing Arbitrator.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners argued that since undisputedly there is a partnership firm and the entire allegation of the complainant hinges round the said partnership business and when particularly there is a clause in the partnership deed that any dispute between the parties shall be referred to an Arbitrator by appointing one under the Arbitration Act, whose decision shall be final and binding on the parties to which all the partners including the complainant agreed, filing of a complaint petition on flimsy and false allegations against another partner and his son is totally unwarranted.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. Taking me into col.6 of the complaint petition of the complainant, learned Counsel for the petitioner pointed out that the alleged occurrence, according to the petitioner, took place on 5.2.2003 which has been mentioned in the said column. But in the said column it is also mentioned that the complainant lodged a report at Golanthara PS regarding the incident on 16.10.2002. He argued vehemently that this is itself is a glaring instance as to how the case is a false and frivolous one initiated to wreck vengeance and when the occurrence itself according to the complainant took place on 5.2.2003, report regarding such occurrence could not have been lodged at the police station on 16.10.2002. Learned counsel also took me through the statements of the other partners of the firm recorded by the I.O. under Section 161, CrPC., who have all stated that the complainant-opposite party No. 2 had dispute relating to the partnership firm with petitioner No. 1 Krushna Chandra Sahu for non-contribution of Rs. l lakh to the firm by complainant-opposite party No. 2. He further took me to the case diary wherein during the investigation of the case the I.O. has categorically mentioned that during the year 2002, due to misunderstanding that prevailed between the parties, the dispute arising out of the partnership firm and the contribution to the same the complainant-opposite party No. 2 reported on 17.10.2002 and 20.1.2003 and petitioner No. 1 Krushna Chandra Sahu had reported on 20.1.2003 and since the allegations related to the partnership firm and both had alleged against each other and no document could be produced to substantiate the allegations the police had made only station diary entries as the dispute was found to be civil nature. Apart from that, the parties became political rivals of each other during the Panchayat and Zilla Parishad elections, although earlier they belonged to one party. Lastly, it was submitted by learned Counsel for the petitioner that the entire episode which has been narrated in the complaint petition is the outcome of the partnership business and if the complainant had any grudge and any doubt regarding misappropriation of partnership fund by the accused petitioner No. l, he could have taken shelter in the appropriate forum by filing civil litigation. Without doing so, he has resorted to criminal prosecution on very flimsy-ground and not only that he has implicated the son of petitioner No. 1 who is an engineering student and prosecuting his study, he submitted.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. It is apparent on record that petitioner No. 1 is businessman and it is submitted by learned Counsel for the petitioner that he is an income tax assessee and the allegation that has been brought by the complainant in his complaint petition which was subsequently treated as FIR by order of learned Magistrate is that the petitioners obstructed the complainant on his way while he was proceeding in his motor-cycle, threatened him, dealt pushes and fist blows, criminally intimidated him and took away cash of Rs. 20,000/- from his pocket. On the face of all these earlier disputes between the parties allegations and counter allegations against each other and political rivalry and the other facts that I have discussed in the preceding paragraphs relating to. the report about this incident to the police even before it took place, makes the matter highly suspicious, rather improbable.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. Learned Addl. Standing Counsel appearing for the State submitted that enmity being, a double edged weapon and in the instant case when the police has submitted charge-sheet and the learned Magistrate has taken cognizance of the offence basing on the same, the order of cognizance should not be quashed as the truth or otherwise of the matter can be ascertained only after a legitimate trial of the petitioners in the Court of learned Magistrate. Learned counsel for the petitioner, on the other hand, relying on a decision reported in : 1992CriLJ527 (State of Haryana v. Ch. Bhajanlal and Ors.) submitted in the light of the said judgment that in the instant case, the FIR of the complainant, even it is taken on its face value and accepted in its entirety it does not constitute any offence or make out any case against the petitioners. He also submitted that the allegations in the complaint/FIR are so absurd and inherently improbable that on the basis of the same no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion. He vehemently urged that this criminal proceeding even manifestly attended with mala fide and the same is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wrecking vengeance on the accused-petitioners with a view to spite them due to private and personal grudge.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. On the admitted factual position and the constant rift between the parties which culminated out of partnership firm and subsequent political rivalry has given rise to this criminal case and the valid object behind this lame prosecution, the very nature of the material on which the structure of the prosecution rests are sufficient for this Court to quash the proceeding in the interest of justice as ends of justice are higher than the ends of mere law though justice has got to be administered according to the laws made by the Legislature. In my view, this is a fit case where the inherent power u/s 482, CrPC should be exercised to quash the proceeding as the entire prosecution case rests on false, frivolous and vexatious allegations and to allow continuance of the proceeding would be sheer misuse of the process of the Court.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. In the result, I quash the order of cognizance order dated 19.12.2003 in G.R. Case No. 23 of 2003 pending in the Court of J.M.F.C., Patrapur and so also the criminal proceeding.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">11. The Criminal Misc. Case is accordingly allowed.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '2005(II)OLR793',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'State of Orissa and anr.',
			'sub' => 'Criminal',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'krushna-chandra-sahu-vs-state-orissa',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '535665',
		(int) 1 => 'krushna-chandra-sahu-vs-state-orissa'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Krushna Chandra Sahu and anr Vs State of Orissa and anr - Citation 535665 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '535665',
		'acts' => 'Arbitration Act; <a href="/act/50902/code-of-criminal-procedure-1973-complete-act">Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1973</a> - Sections 156(3), 161 and 482; Indian Penal Code (IPC) - Sections 34, 323, 341, 392 and 506',
		'appealno' => 'Crl. Misc. Case No. 1814 of 2004',
		'appellant' => 'Krushna Chandra Sahu and anr.',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Krushna Chandra Sahu and anr. Vs. State of Orissa and anr.',
		'casenote' => 'Criminal - Cognizance - Quashing of - Section 156(3) of Code of Criminal Procedure,1973(Cr. PC) and Sections 34, 323, 341, 392 and 506 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) - Respondent and petitioners constituted partnership firm according - Petitioners misappropriated firm's money - Respondent approached police for lodging FIR against petitioners - Police refused to lodged FIR - Respondent filed complaint before Magistrate under Section 156(3) of Cr. P. C. - Magistrate allowed complaint and directed police to lodge FIR - Police officer lodged FIR against petitioners for commission of offence under Sections 341, 323, 392 and 506/34 of IPC and conducted investigation - On completion of investigation, police submitted charge sheet and Magistrate took cognizance of offence against petitioners - Hence, present writ petition filed seeking quashment of cognizance taken - Held, from facts and available material on record it established that respondent falsely implicated petitioners in present case due to dispute arose between them in relation to partnership firm running by them - Sufficient ground exist behind present lame prosecution and sufficient reasons and evidences exist to quash the same - Accordingly, writ petition allowed and order of cognizance quashed  - LABOUR & SERVICES 
Pay Scale:[Tarun Chatterjee & R.M. Lodha,JJ] Fixation - Orissa Service Code (1939), Rule 74(b)  Promotion - Government servant, by virtue of Rule 74(b), gets higher pay than what he was getting immediately before his promotion - Circular Dated 19.3.1983 modifying earlier Circular Dated 18.6.1982 resulting in  reduction of pay of employee on promotion  Held, It is not legal. Statutory Rules cannot be altered or amended by such Executive orders or Circulars or Instructions nor can they replace Statutory Rules.
 -  2 since failed in his attempt to rope in petitioner .No.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '(State of Haryana v. Ch. Bhajanlal and Ors.;',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => ' R.K. Nayak,;P.C. Jena
and;S.P. Dash, Advs.',
		'counseldef' => ' Addl. Standing Counsel for O.P. No. 1 and; R.K. Nanda, Adv. for O.P. No. 2',
		'court' => 'Orissa',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2005-10-07',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => ' A.K. Samantaray, J.',
		'judgement' => '<p>A.K. Samantaray, J.</p><p>1. In this Criminal Misc. Case under Section 482, Cr.P.C. the petitioners who are father and sort have prayed for quashing of the order of cognizance dated 19.12.2003 in G.R. Case No. 23 of 2003 passed by learned J.M.F.C.. Patrapur (GM). Learned Magistrate took cognizance of the offences under Sections 341, 323, 392, 506/34, IPC on the allegation of opposite party No. 2.</p><p>2. The prosecution case, as it appears from the complaint petition which was subsequently treated as FIR as per the direction of the learned Magistrate under Section 156(3), CrPC, in short is that the complainant-opposite party No. 2 A. Ranga Rao. petitioner No. 1 Krushna Chandra Sahu, Rajendra Kumar Sahu. Basudev Panda. Pravakar Sabat and Prafulla Kumar Sahu constituted a firm in the name and style of 'Madhupriya Estate'. They also executed a partnership deed on 1.8,1998 and according to the terms of the partnership deed they had to share the capital. It is alleged that petitioner No. 1 Krushna Chandra Sahu did not render any account, income and expenditure of the firm to the complainant-partner A. Ranga Rao, For this act of petitioner No. 1 the relationship between the complainant and the petitioner No. 1 soured. When the complainant insisted for rendering accounts petitioner No. 1 did not give the same and misappropriated the firm's money. It is also alleged that the complainant had reported the matter on 15.10.2002 at Golanthara PS, but the police did not take any action on the matter. It is also alleged in the complaint petition that on 5.2.2003 both the petitioner came in a Motor-cycle, rebuked the complainant, threatened him. dealt fist blows and took away cash of Rs. 20,000/- from his pocket when he was proceeding on the canal road towards Berhampur town. On these allegations a complaint petition was filed alleging further that the complainant had been to the police and the police called him 4-5 times, but ultimately did not take any action. The said complaint petition filed before the learned Magistrate on 17.2.2003 was registered as ICC No. 2/2003 and subsequently the learned Magistrate forwarded the complaint petition to the OIC. Golanthara PS to treat the same as FIR under Section 156(3). CrPC. and to proceed with the same in accordance with law. On receipt of the said complaint from the Court the Golanthara police treated the same as FIR, registered Golanthara PS case No. 98/ 2003 for the offence under Sections 341, 323, 392 and 506/34 IPC and proceeded with the investigation and on completion of the investigation submitted charge-sheet. Although there was no legal material available/collected during the course of the investigation and the learned Magistrate after receipt of the charge-sheet without application of his judicial mind and without considering the backdrop which resulted in the initiation of the case against the petitioners, took cognizance of the offence it is alleged.</p><p>3. The salient grounds taken by the petitioners in this application' under Section 482, CrPC to quash the order of cognizance are that there exists dispute of civil nature between the parties arising out of the partnership firm. The complainant-opposite party No. 2 since failed in his attempt to rope in petitioner . No. 1 in another criminal case which he had earlier initiated against him, he has come out with the frivolous complaint to wreck vengeance against the petitioners who are father and son and are in no way involved in the alleged offences.</p><p>4. During the hearing of the petition and also on a perusal of the complaint/FIR and the case diary I come to find that the parties had admittedly started a real estate business and it is also admitted fact that there was a partnership deed executed by the parties to the said partnership firm on 1.8.1998 where this petitioner No. l Krushna Chandra Sahu, A. Ranga Rao, the complainant, Rajendra Kumar Sahu, Basudev Panda, Pravakar Sabat and Prafulla Kumar Sahu were the partners. On a scrutiny of the said partnership deed which contains many clauses regarding the function of the firm, share to be contributed, role which be played by each partner have been specifically mentioned in the said deed. In clause 18 there is specific mention that any dispute or difference arising amongst the partners with respect to the construction or interpretation of the deed or any other matter relating to the partnership affairs shall be referred to arbitration under the provisions of Indian Arbitration Act by appointing Arbitrator.</p><p>5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners argued that since undisputedly there is a partnership firm and the entire allegation of the complainant hinges round the said partnership business and when particularly there is a clause in the partnership deed that any dispute between the parties shall be referred to an Arbitrator by appointing one under the Arbitration Act, whose decision shall be final and binding on the parties to which all the partners including the complainant agreed, filing of a complaint petition on flimsy and false allegations against another partner and his son is totally unwarranted.</p><p>6. Taking me into col.6 of the complaint petition of the complainant, learned Counsel for the petitioner pointed out that the alleged occurrence, according to the petitioner, took place on 5.2.2003 which has been mentioned in the said column. But in the said column it is also mentioned that the complainant lodged a report at Golanthara PS regarding the incident on 16.10.2002. He argued vehemently that this is itself is a glaring instance as to how the case is a false and frivolous one initiated to wreck vengeance and when the occurrence itself according to the complainant took place on 5.2.2003, report regarding such occurrence could not have been lodged at the police station on 16.10.2002. Learned counsel also took me through the statements of the other partners of the firm recorded by the I.O. under Section 161, CrPC., who have all stated that the complainant-opposite party No. 2 had dispute relating to the partnership firm with petitioner No. 1 Krushna Chandra Sahu for non-contribution of Rs. l lakh to the firm by complainant-opposite party No. 2. He further took me to the case diary wherein during the investigation of the case the I.O. has categorically mentioned that during the year 2002, due to misunderstanding that prevailed between the parties, the dispute arising out of the partnership firm and the contribution to the same the complainant-opposite party No. 2 reported on 17.10.2002 and 20.1.2003 and petitioner No. 1 Krushna Chandra Sahu had reported on 20.1.2003 and since the allegations related to the partnership firm and both had alleged against each other and no document could be produced to substantiate the allegations the police had made only station diary entries as the dispute was found to be civil nature. Apart from that, the parties became political rivals of each other during the Panchayat and Zilla Parishad elections, although earlier they belonged to one party. Lastly, it was submitted by learned Counsel for the petitioner that the entire episode which has been narrated in the complaint petition is the outcome of the partnership business and if the complainant had any grudge and any doubt regarding misappropriation of partnership fund by the accused petitioner No. l, he could have taken shelter in the appropriate forum by filing civil litigation. Without doing so, he has resorted to criminal prosecution on very flimsy-ground and not only that he has implicated the son of petitioner No. 1 who is an engineering student and prosecuting his study, he submitted.</p><p>7. It is apparent on record that petitioner No. 1 is businessman and it is submitted by learned Counsel for the petitioner that he is an income tax assessee and the allegation that has been brought by the complainant in his complaint petition which was subsequently treated as FIR by order of learned Magistrate is that the petitioners obstructed the complainant on his way while he was proceeding in his motor-cycle, threatened him, dealt pushes and fist blows, criminally intimidated him and took away cash of Rs. 20,000/- from his pocket. On the face of all these earlier disputes between the parties allegations and counter allegations against each other and political rivalry and the other facts that I have discussed in the preceding paragraphs relating to. the report about this incident to the police even before it took place, makes the matter highly suspicious, rather improbable.</p><p>8. Learned Addl. Standing Counsel appearing for the State submitted that enmity being, a double edged weapon and in the instant case when the police has submitted charge-sheet and the learned Magistrate has taken cognizance of the offence basing on the same, the order of cognizance should not be quashed as the truth or otherwise of the matter can be ascertained only after a legitimate trial of the petitioners in the Court of learned Magistrate. Learned counsel for the petitioner, on the other hand, relying on a decision reported in : 1992CriLJ527 (State of Haryana v. Ch. Bhajanlal and Ors.) submitted in the light of the said judgment that in the instant case, the FIR of the complainant, even it is taken on its face value and accepted in its entirety it does not constitute any offence or make out any case against the petitioners. He also submitted that the allegations in the complaint/FIR are so absurd and inherently improbable that on the basis of the same no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion. He vehemently urged that this criminal proceeding even manifestly attended with mala fide and the same is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wrecking vengeance on the accused-petitioners with a view to spite them due to private and personal grudge.</p><p>9. On the admitted factual position and the constant rift between the parties which culminated out of partnership firm and subsequent political rivalry has given rise to this criminal case and the valid object behind this lame prosecution, the very nature of the material on which the structure of the prosecution rests are sufficient for this Court to quash the proceeding in the interest of justice as ends of justice are higher than the ends of mere law though justice has got to be administered according to the laws made by the Legislature. In my view, this is a fit case where the inherent power u/s 482, CrPC should be exercised to quash the proceeding as the entire prosecution case rests on false, frivolous and vexatious allegations and to allow continuance of the proceeding would be sheer misuse of the process of the Court.</p><p>10. In the result, I quash the order of cognizance order dated 19.12.2003 in G.R. Case No. 23 of 2003 pending in the Court of J.M.F.C., Patrapur and so also the criminal proceeding.</p><p>11. The Criminal Misc. Case is accordingly allowed.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '2005(II)OLR793',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'State of Orissa and anr.',
		'sub' => 'Criminal',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'krushna-chandra-sahu-vs-state-orissa'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '535665',
	(int) 1 => 'krushna-chandra-sahu-vs-state-orissa'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/535665/krushna-chandra-sahu-vs-state-orissa'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$caseref = '(State of Haryana v. Ch. Bhajanlal and Ors.<br>'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>A.K. Samantaray, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. In this Criminal Misc. Case under Section 482, Cr.P.C. the petitioners who are father and sort have prayed for quashing of the order of cognizance dated 19.12.2003 in G.R. Case No. 23 of 2003 passed by learned J.M.F.C.. Patrapur (GM). Learned Magistrate took cognizance of the offences under Sections 341, 323, 392, 506/34, IPC on the allegation of opposite party No. 2.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. The prosecution case, as it appears from the complaint petition which was subsequently treated as FIR as per the direction of the learned Magistrate under Section 156(3), CrPC, in short is that the complainant-opposite party No. 2 A. Ranga Rao. petitioner No. 1 Krushna Chandra Sahu, Rajendra Kumar Sahu. Basudev Panda. Pravakar Sabat and Prafulla Kumar Sahu constituted a firm in the name and style of 'Madhupriya Estate'. They also executed a partnership deed on 1.8,1998 and according to the terms of the partnership deed they had to share the capital. It is alleged that petitioner No. 1 Krushna Chandra Sahu did not render any account, income and expenditure of the firm to the complainant-partner A. Ranga Rao, For this act of petitioner No. 1 the relationship between the complainant and the petitioner No. 1 soured. When the complainant insisted for rendering accounts petitioner No. 1 did not give the same and misappropriated the firm's money. It is also alleged that the complainant had reported the matter on 15.10.2002 at Golanthara PS, but the police did not take any action on the matter. It is also alleged in the complaint petition that on 5.2.2003 both the petitioner came in a Motor-cycle, rebuked the complainant, threatened him. dealt fist blows and took away cash of Rs. 20,000/- from his pocket when he was proceeding on the canal road towards Berhampur town. On these allegations a complaint petition was filed alleging further that the complainant had been to the police and the police called him 4-5 times, but ultimately did not take any action. The said complaint petition filed before the learned Magistrate on 17.2.2003 was registered as ICC No. 2/2003 and subsequently the learned Magistrate forwarded the complaint petition to the OIC. Golanthara PS to treat the same as FIR under Section 156(3). CrPC. and to proceed with the same in accordance with law. On receipt of the said complaint from the Court the Golanthara police treated the same as FIR, registered Golanthara PS case No. 98/ 2003 for the offence under Sections 341, 323, 392 and 506/34 IPC and proceeded with the investigation and on completion of the investigation submitted charge-sheet. Although there was no legal material available/collected during the course of the investigation and the learned Magistrate after receipt of the charge-sheet without application of his judicial mind and without considering the backdrop which resulted in the initiation of the case against the petitioners, took cognizance of the offence it is alleged.',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. The salient grounds taken by the petitioners in this application' under Section 482, CrPC to quash the order of cognizance are that there exists dispute of civil nature between the parties arising out of the partnership firm. The complainant-opposite party No. 2 since failed in his attempt to rope in petitioner . No. 1 in another criminal case which he had earlier initiated against him, he has come out with the frivolous complaint to wreck vengeance against the petitioners who are father and son and are in no way involved in the alleged offences.',
	(int) 4 => '<p>4. During the hearing of the petition and also on a perusal of the complaint/FIR and the case diary I come to find that the parties had admittedly started a real estate business and it is also admitted fact that there was a partnership deed executed by the parties to the said partnership firm on 1.8.1998 where this petitioner No. l Krushna Chandra Sahu, A. Ranga Rao, the complainant, Rajendra Kumar Sahu, Basudev Panda, Pravakar Sabat and Prafulla Kumar Sahu were the partners. On a scrutiny of the said partnership deed which contains many clauses regarding the function of the firm, share to be contributed, role which be played by each partner have been specifically mentioned in the said deed. In clause 18 there is specific mention that any dispute or difference arising amongst the partners with respect to the construction or interpretation of the deed or any other matter relating to the partnership affairs shall be referred to arbitration under the provisions of Indian Arbitration Act by appointing Arbitrator.',
	(int) 5 => '<p>5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners argued that since undisputedly there is a partnership firm and the entire allegation of the complainant hinges round the said partnership business and when particularly there is a clause in the partnership deed that any dispute between the parties shall be referred to an Arbitrator by appointing one under the Arbitration Act, whose decision shall be final and binding on the parties to which all the partners including the complainant agreed, filing of a complaint petition on flimsy and false allegations against another partner and his son is totally unwarranted.',
	(int) 6 => '<p>6. Taking me into col.6 of the complaint petition of the complainant, learned Counsel for the petitioner pointed out that the alleged occurrence, according to the petitioner, took place on 5.2.2003 which has been mentioned in the said column. But in the said column it is also mentioned that the complainant lodged a report at Golanthara PS regarding the incident on 16.10.2002. He argued vehemently that this is itself is a glaring instance as to how the case is a false and frivolous one initiated to wreck vengeance and when the occurrence itself according to the complainant took place on 5.2.2003, report regarding such occurrence could not have been lodged at the police station on 16.10.2002. Learned counsel also took me through the statements of the other partners of the firm recorded by the I.O. under Section 161, CrPC., who have all stated that the complainant-opposite party No. 2 had dispute relating to the partnership firm with petitioner No. 1 Krushna Chandra Sahu for non-contribution of Rs. l lakh to the firm by complainant-opposite party No. 2. He further took me to the case diary wherein during the investigation of the case the I.O. has categorically mentioned that during the year 2002, due to misunderstanding that prevailed between the parties, the dispute arising out of the partnership firm and the contribution to the same the complainant-opposite party No. 2 reported on 17.10.2002 and 20.1.2003 and petitioner No. 1 Krushna Chandra Sahu had reported on 20.1.2003 and since the allegations related to the partnership firm and both had alleged against each other and no document could be produced to substantiate the allegations the police had made only station diary entries as the dispute was found to be civil nature. Apart from that, the parties became political rivals of each other during the Panchayat and Zilla Parishad elections, although earlier they belonged to one party. Lastly, it was submitted by learned Counsel for the petitioner that the entire episode which has been narrated in the complaint petition is the outcome of the partnership business and if the complainant had any grudge and any doubt regarding misappropriation of partnership fund by the accused petitioner No. l, he could have taken shelter in the appropriate forum by filing civil litigation. Without doing so, he has resorted to criminal prosecution on very flimsy-ground and not only that he has implicated the son of petitioner No. 1 who is an engineering student and prosecuting his study, he submitted.',
	(int) 7 => '<p>7. It is apparent on record that petitioner No. 1 is businessman and it is submitted by learned Counsel for the petitioner that he is an income tax assessee and the allegation that has been brought by the complainant in his complaint petition which was subsequently treated as FIR by order of learned Magistrate is that the petitioners obstructed the complainant on his way while he was proceeding in his motor-cycle, threatened him, dealt pushes and fist blows, criminally intimidated him and took away cash of Rs. 20,000/- from his pocket. On the face of all these earlier disputes between the parties allegations and counter allegations against each other and political rivalry and the other facts that I have discussed in the preceding paragraphs relating to. the report about this incident to the police even before it took place, makes the matter highly suspicious, rather improbable.',
	(int) 8 => '<p>8. Learned Addl. Standing Counsel appearing for the State submitted that enmity being, a double edged weapon and in the instant case when the police has submitted charge-sheet and the learned Magistrate has taken cognizance of the offence basing on the same, the order of cognizance should not be quashed as the truth or otherwise of the matter can be ascertained only after a legitimate trial of the petitioners in the Court of learned Magistrate. Learned counsel for the petitioner, on the other hand, relying on a decision reported in : 1992CriLJ527 (State of Haryana v. Ch. Bhajanlal and Ors.) submitted in the light of the said judgment that in the instant case, the FIR of the complainant, even it is taken on its face value and accepted in its entirety it does not constitute any offence or make out any case against the petitioners. He also submitted that the allegations in the complaint/FIR are so absurd and inherently improbable that on the basis of the same no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion. He vehemently urged that this criminal proceeding even manifestly attended with mala fide and the same is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wrecking vengeance on the accused-petitioners with a view to spite them due to private and personal grudge.',
	(int) 9 => '<p>9. On the admitted factual position and the constant rift between the parties which culminated out of partnership firm and subsequent political rivalry has given rise to this criminal case and the valid object behind this lame prosecution, the very nature of the material on which the structure of the prosecution rests are sufficient for this Court to quash the proceeding in the interest of justice as ends of justice are higher than the ends of mere law though justice has got to be administered according to the laws made by the Legislature. In my view, this is a fit case where the inherent power u/s 482, CrPC should be exercised to quash the proceeding as the entire prosecution case rests on false, frivolous and vexatious allegations and to allow continuance of the proceeding would be sheer misuse of the process of the Court.',
	(int) 10 => '<p>10. In the result, I quash the order of cognizance order dated 19.12.2003 in G.R. Case No. 23 of 2003 pending in the Court of J.M.F.C., Patrapur and so also the criminal proceeding.',
	(int) 11 => '<p>11. The Criminal Misc. Case is accordingly allowed.<p>',
	(int) 12 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 13
$i = (int) 4
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

4. During the hearing of the petition and also on a perusal of the complaint/FIR and the case diary I come to find that the parties had admittedly started a real estate business and it is also admitted fact that there was a partnership deed executed by the parties to the said partnership firm on 1.8.1998 where this petitioner No. l Krushna Chandra Sahu, A. Ranga Rao, the complainant, Rajendra Kumar Sahu, Basudev Panda, Pravakar Sabat and Prafulla Kumar Sahu were the partners. On a scrutiny of the said partnership deed which contains many clauses regarding the function of the firm, share to be contributed, role which be played by each partner have been specifically mentioned in the said deed. In clause 18 there is specific mention that any dispute or difference arising amongst the partners with respect to the construction or interpretation of the deed or any other matter relating to the partnership affairs shall be referred to arbitration under the provisions of Indian Arbitration Act by appointing Arbitrator.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Context                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Krushna Chandra Sahu and anr Vs State of Orissa and anr - Citation 535665 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '535665',
			'acts' => 'Arbitration Act; <a href="/act/50902/code-of-criminal-procedure-1973-complete-act">Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1973</a> - Sections 156(3), 161 and 482; Indian Penal Code (IPC) - Sections 34, 323, 341, 392 and 506',
			'appealno' => 'Crl. Misc. Case No. 1814 of 2004',
			'appellant' => 'Krushna Chandra Sahu and anr.',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Krushna Chandra Sahu and anr. Vs. State of Orissa and anr.',
			'casenote' => 'Criminal - Cognizance - Quashing of - Section 156(3) of Code of Criminal Procedure,1973(Cr. PC) and Sections 34, 323, 341, 392 and 506 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) - Respondent and petitioners constituted partnership firm according - Petitioners misappropriated firm's money - Respondent approached police for lodging FIR against petitioners - Police refused to lodged FIR - Respondent filed complaint before Magistrate under Section 156(3) of Cr. P. C. - Magistrate allowed complaint and directed police to lodge FIR - Police officer lodged FIR against petitioners for commission of offence under Sections 341, 323, 392 and 506/34 of IPC and conducted investigation - On completion of investigation, police submitted charge sheet and Magistrate took cognizance of offence against petitioners - Hence, present writ petition filed seeking quashment of cognizance taken - Held, from facts and available material on record it established that respondent falsely implicated petitioners in present case due to dispute arose between them in relation to partnership firm running by them - Sufficient ground exist behind present lame prosecution and sufficient reasons and evidences exist to quash the same - Accordingly, writ petition allowed and order of cognizance quashed  - LABOUR & SERVICES 
Pay Scale:[Tarun Chatterjee & R.M. Lodha,JJ] Fixation - Orissa Service Code (1939), Rule 74(b)  Promotion - Government servant, by virtue of Rule 74(b), gets higher pay than what he was getting immediately before his promotion - Circular Dated 19.3.1983 modifying earlier Circular Dated 18.6.1982 resulting in  reduction of pay of employee on promotion  Held, It is not legal. Statutory Rules cannot be altered or amended by such Executive orders or Circulars or Instructions nor can they replace Statutory Rules.
 -  2 since failed in his attempt to rope in petitioner .No.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '(State of Haryana v. Ch. Bhajanlal and Ors.;',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => ' R.K. Nayak,;P.C. Jena
and;S.P. Dash, Advs.',
			'counseldef' => ' Addl. Standing Counsel for O.P. No. 1 and; R.K. Nanda, Adv. for O.P. No. 2',
			'court' => 'Orissa',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2005-10-07',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => ' A.K. Samantaray, J.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">A.K. Samantaray, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. In this Criminal Misc. Case under Section 482, Cr.P.C. the petitioners who are father and sort have prayed for quashing of the order of cognizance dated 19.12.2003 in G.R. Case No. 23 of 2003 passed by learned J.M.F.C.. Patrapur (GM). Learned Magistrate took cognizance of the offences under Sections 341, 323, 392, 506/34, IPC on the allegation of opposite party No. 2.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The prosecution case, as it appears from the complaint petition which was subsequently treated as FIR as per the direction of the learned Magistrate under Section 156(3), CrPC, in short is that the complainant-opposite party No. 2 A. Ranga Rao. petitioner No. 1 Krushna Chandra Sahu, Rajendra Kumar Sahu. Basudev Panda. Pravakar Sabat and Prafulla Kumar Sahu constituted a firm in the name and style of 'Madhupriya Estate'. They also executed a partnership deed on 1.8,1998 and according to the terms of the partnership deed they had to share the capital. It is alleged that petitioner No. 1 Krushna Chandra Sahu did not render any account, income and expenditure of the firm to the complainant-partner A. Ranga Rao, For this act of petitioner No. 1 the relationship between the complainant and the petitioner No. 1 soured. When the complainant insisted for rendering accounts petitioner No. 1 did not give the same and misappropriated the firm's money. It is also alleged that the complainant had reported the matter on 15.10.2002 at Golanthara PS, but the police did not take any action on the matter. It is also alleged in the complaint petition that on 5.2.2003 both the petitioner came in a Motor-cycle, rebuked the complainant, threatened him. dealt fist blows and took away cash of Rs. 20,000/- from his pocket when he was proceeding on the canal road towards Berhampur town. On these allegations a complaint petition was filed alleging further that the complainant had been to the police and the police called him 4-5 times, but ultimately did not take any action. The said complaint petition filed before the learned Magistrate on 17.2.2003 was registered as ICC No. 2/2003 and subsequently the learned Magistrate forwarded the complaint petition to the OIC. Golanthara PS to treat the same as FIR under Section 156(3). CrPC. and to proceed with the same in accordance with law. On receipt of the said complaint from the Court the Golanthara police treated the same as FIR, registered Golanthara PS case No. 98/ 2003 for the offence under Sections 341, 323, 392 and 506/34 IPC and proceeded with the investigation and on completion of the investigation submitted charge-sheet. Although there was no legal material available/collected during the course of the investigation and the learned Magistrate after receipt of the charge-sheet without application of his judicial mind and without considering the backdrop which resulted in the initiation of the case against the petitioners, took cognizance of the offence it is alleged.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. The salient grounds taken by the petitioners in this application' under Section 482, CrPC to quash the order of cognizance are that there exists dispute of civil nature between the parties arising out of the partnership firm. The complainant-opposite party No. 2 since failed in his attempt to rope in petitioner . No. 1 in another criminal case which he had earlier initiated against him, he has come out with the frivolous complaint to wreck vengeance against the petitioners who are father and son and are in no way involved in the alleged offences.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. During the hearing of the petition and also on a perusal of the complaint/FIR and the case diary I come to find that the parties had admittedly started a real estate business and it is also admitted fact that there was a partnership deed executed by the parties to the said partnership firm on 1.8.1998 where this petitioner No. l Krushna Chandra Sahu, A. Ranga Rao, the complainant, Rajendra Kumar Sahu, Basudev Panda, Pravakar Sabat and Prafulla Kumar Sahu were the partners. On a scrutiny of the said partnership deed which contains many clauses regarding the function of the firm, share to be contributed, role which be played by each partner have been specifically mentioned in the said deed. In clause 18 there is specific mention that any dispute or difference arising amongst the partners with respect to the construction or interpretation of the deed or any other matter relating to the partnership affairs shall be referred to arbitration under the provisions of Indian Arbitration Act by appointing Arbitrator.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners argued that since undisputedly there is a partnership firm and the entire allegation of the complainant hinges round the said partnership business and when particularly there is a clause in the partnership deed that any dispute between the parties shall be referred to an Arbitrator by appointing one under the Arbitration Act, whose decision shall be final and binding on the parties to which all the partners including the complainant agreed, filing of a complaint petition on flimsy and false allegations against another partner and his son is totally unwarranted.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. Taking me into col.6 of the complaint petition of the complainant, learned Counsel for the petitioner pointed out that the alleged occurrence, according to the petitioner, took place on 5.2.2003 which has been mentioned in the said column. But in the said column it is also mentioned that the complainant lodged a report at Golanthara PS regarding the incident on 16.10.2002. He argued vehemently that this is itself is a glaring instance as to how the case is a false and frivolous one initiated to wreck vengeance and when the occurrence itself according to the complainant took place on 5.2.2003, report regarding such occurrence could not have been lodged at the police station on 16.10.2002. Learned counsel also took me through the statements of the other partners of the firm recorded by the I.O. under Section 161, CrPC., who have all stated that the complainant-opposite party No. 2 had dispute relating to the partnership firm with petitioner No. 1 Krushna Chandra Sahu for non-contribution of Rs. l lakh to the firm by complainant-opposite party No. 2. He further took me to the case diary wherein during the investigation of the case the I.O. has categorically mentioned that during the year 2002, due to misunderstanding that prevailed between the parties, the dispute arising out of the partnership firm and the contribution to the same the complainant-opposite party No. 2 reported on 17.10.2002 and 20.1.2003 and petitioner No. 1 Krushna Chandra Sahu had reported on 20.1.2003 and since the allegations related to the partnership firm and both had alleged against each other and no document could be produced to substantiate the allegations the police had made only station diary entries as the dispute was found to be civil nature. Apart from that, the parties became political rivals of each other during the Panchayat and Zilla Parishad elections, although earlier they belonged to one party. Lastly, it was submitted by learned Counsel for the petitioner that the entire episode which has been narrated in the complaint petition is the outcome of the partnership business and if the complainant had any grudge and any doubt regarding misappropriation of partnership fund by the accused petitioner No. l, he could have taken shelter in the appropriate forum by filing civil litigation. Without doing so, he has resorted to criminal prosecution on very flimsy-ground and not only that he has implicated the son of petitioner No. 1 who is an engineering student and prosecuting his study, he submitted.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. It is apparent on record that petitioner No. 1 is businessman and it is submitted by learned Counsel for the petitioner that he is an income tax assessee and the allegation that has been brought by the complainant in his complaint petition which was subsequently treated as FIR by order of learned Magistrate is that the petitioners obstructed the complainant on his way while he was proceeding in his motor-cycle, threatened him, dealt pushes and fist blows, criminally intimidated him and took away cash of Rs. 20,000/- from his pocket. On the face of all these earlier disputes between the parties allegations and counter allegations against each other and political rivalry and the other facts that I have discussed in the preceding paragraphs relating to. the report about this incident to the police even before it took place, makes the matter highly suspicious, rather improbable.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. Learned Addl. Standing Counsel appearing for the State submitted that enmity being, a double edged weapon and in the instant case when the police has submitted charge-sheet and the learned Magistrate has taken cognizance of the offence basing on the same, the order of cognizance should not be quashed as the truth or otherwise of the matter can be ascertained only after a legitimate trial of the petitioners in the Court of learned Magistrate. Learned counsel for the petitioner, on the other hand, relying on a decision reported in : 1992CriLJ527 (State of Haryana v. Ch. Bhajanlal and Ors.) submitted in the light of the said judgment that in the instant case, the FIR of the complainant, even it is taken on its face value and accepted in its entirety it does not constitute any offence or make out any case against the petitioners. He also submitted that the allegations in the complaint/FIR are so absurd and inherently improbable that on the basis of the same no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion. He vehemently urged that this criminal proceeding even manifestly attended with mala fide and the same is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wrecking vengeance on the accused-petitioners with a view to spite them due to private and personal grudge.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. On the admitted factual position and the constant rift between the parties which culminated out of partnership firm and subsequent political rivalry has given rise to this criminal case and the valid object behind this lame prosecution, the very nature of the material on which the structure of the prosecution rests are sufficient for this Court to quash the proceeding in the interest of justice as ends of justice are higher than the ends of mere law though justice has got to be administered according to the laws made by the Legislature. In my view, this is a fit case where the inherent power u/s 482, CrPC should be exercised to quash the proceeding as the entire prosecution case rests on false, frivolous and vexatious allegations and to allow continuance of the proceeding would be sheer misuse of the process of the Court.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. In the result, I quash the order of cognizance order dated 19.12.2003 in G.R. Case No. 23 of 2003 pending in the Court of J.M.F.C., Patrapur and so also the criminal proceeding.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">11. The Criminal Misc. Case is accordingly allowed.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '2005(II)OLR793',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'State of Orissa and anr.',
			'sub' => 'Criminal',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'krushna-chandra-sahu-vs-state-orissa',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '535665',
		(int) 1 => 'krushna-chandra-sahu-vs-state-orissa'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Krushna Chandra Sahu and anr Vs State of Orissa and anr - Citation 535665 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '535665',
		'acts' => 'Arbitration Act; <a href="/act/50902/code-of-criminal-procedure-1973-complete-act">Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1973</a> - Sections 156(3), 161 and 482; Indian Penal Code (IPC) - Sections 34, 323, 341, 392 and 506',
		'appealno' => 'Crl. Misc. Case No. 1814 of 2004',
		'appellant' => 'Krushna Chandra Sahu and anr.',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Krushna Chandra Sahu and anr. Vs. State of Orissa and anr.',
		'casenote' => 'Criminal - Cognizance - Quashing of - Section 156(3) of Code of Criminal Procedure,1973(Cr. PC) and Sections 34, 323, 341, 392 and 506 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) - Respondent and petitioners constituted partnership firm according - Petitioners misappropriated firm's money - Respondent approached police for lodging FIR against petitioners - Police refused to lodged FIR - Respondent filed complaint before Magistrate under Section 156(3) of Cr. P. C. - Magistrate allowed complaint and directed police to lodge FIR - Police officer lodged FIR against petitioners for commission of offence under Sections 341, 323, 392 and 506/34 of IPC and conducted investigation - On completion of investigation, police submitted charge sheet and Magistrate took cognizance of offence against petitioners - Hence, present writ petition filed seeking quashment of cognizance taken - Held, from facts and available material on record it established that respondent falsely implicated petitioners in present case due to dispute arose between them in relation to partnership firm running by them - Sufficient ground exist behind present lame prosecution and sufficient reasons and evidences exist to quash the same - Accordingly, writ petition allowed and order of cognizance quashed  - LABOUR & SERVICES 
Pay Scale:[Tarun Chatterjee & R.M. Lodha,JJ] Fixation - Orissa Service Code (1939), Rule 74(b)  Promotion - Government servant, by virtue of Rule 74(b), gets higher pay than what he was getting immediately before his promotion - Circular Dated 19.3.1983 modifying earlier Circular Dated 18.6.1982 resulting in  reduction of pay of employee on promotion  Held, It is not legal. Statutory Rules cannot be altered or amended by such Executive orders or Circulars or Instructions nor can they replace Statutory Rules.
 -  2 since failed in his attempt to rope in petitioner .No.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '(State of Haryana v. Ch. Bhajanlal and Ors.;',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => ' R.K. Nayak,;P.C. Jena
and;S.P. Dash, Advs.',
		'counseldef' => ' Addl. Standing Counsel for O.P. No. 1 and; R.K. Nanda, Adv. for O.P. No. 2',
		'court' => 'Orissa',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2005-10-07',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => ' A.K. Samantaray, J.',
		'judgement' => '<p>A.K. Samantaray, J.</p><p>1. In this Criminal Misc. Case under Section 482, Cr.P.C. the petitioners who are father and sort have prayed for quashing of the order of cognizance dated 19.12.2003 in G.R. Case No. 23 of 2003 passed by learned J.M.F.C.. Patrapur (GM). Learned Magistrate took cognizance of the offences under Sections 341, 323, 392, 506/34, IPC on the allegation of opposite party No. 2.</p><p>2. The prosecution case, as it appears from the complaint petition which was subsequently treated as FIR as per the direction of the learned Magistrate under Section 156(3), CrPC, in short is that the complainant-opposite party No. 2 A. Ranga Rao. petitioner No. 1 Krushna Chandra Sahu, Rajendra Kumar Sahu. Basudev Panda. Pravakar Sabat and Prafulla Kumar Sahu constituted a firm in the name and style of 'Madhupriya Estate'. They also executed a partnership deed on 1.8,1998 and according to the terms of the partnership deed they had to share the capital. It is alleged that petitioner No. 1 Krushna Chandra Sahu did not render any account, income and expenditure of the firm to the complainant-partner A. Ranga Rao, For this act of petitioner No. 1 the relationship between the complainant and the petitioner No. 1 soured. When the complainant insisted for rendering accounts petitioner No. 1 did not give the same and misappropriated the firm's money. It is also alleged that the complainant had reported the matter on 15.10.2002 at Golanthara PS, but the police did not take any action on the matter. It is also alleged in the complaint petition that on 5.2.2003 both the petitioner came in a Motor-cycle, rebuked the complainant, threatened him. dealt fist blows and took away cash of Rs. 20,000/- from his pocket when he was proceeding on the canal road towards Berhampur town. On these allegations a complaint petition was filed alleging further that the complainant had been to the police and the police called him 4-5 times, but ultimately did not take any action. The said complaint petition filed before the learned Magistrate on 17.2.2003 was registered as ICC No. 2/2003 and subsequently the learned Magistrate forwarded the complaint petition to the OIC. Golanthara PS to treat the same as FIR under Section 156(3). CrPC. and to proceed with the same in accordance with law. On receipt of the said complaint from the Court the Golanthara police treated the same as FIR, registered Golanthara PS case No. 98/ 2003 for the offence under Sections 341, 323, 392 and 506/34 IPC and proceeded with the investigation and on completion of the investigation submitted charge-sheet. Although there was no legal material available/collected during the course of the investigation and the learned Magistrate after receipt of the charge-sheet without application of his judicial mind and without considering the backdrop which resulted in the initiation of the case against the petitioners, took cognizance of the offence it is alleged.</p><p>3. The salient grounds taken by the petitioners in this application' under Section 482, CrPC to quash the order of cognizance are that there exists dispute of civil nature between the parties arising out of the partnership firm. The complainant-opposite party No. 2 since failed in his attempt to rope in petitioner . No. 1 in another criminal case which he had earlier initiated against him, he has come out with the frivolous complaint to wreck vengeance against the petitioners who are father and son and are in no way involved in the alleged offences.</p><p>4. During the hearing of the petition and also on a perusal of the complaint/FIR and the case diary I come to find that the parties had admittedly started a real estate business and it is also admitted fact that there was a partnership deed executed by the parties to the said partnership firm on 1.8.1998 where this petitioner No. l Krushna Chandra Sahu, A. Ranga Rao, the complainant, Rajendra Kumar Sahu, Basudev Panda, Pravakar Sabat and Prafulla Kumar Sahu were the partners. On a scrutiny of the said partnership deed which contains many clauses regarding the function of the firm, share to be contributed, role which be played by each partner have been specifically mentioned in the said deed. In clause 18 there is specific mention that any dispute or difference arising amongst the partners with respect to the construction or interpretation of the deed or any other matter relating to the partnership affairs shall be referred to arbitration under the provisions of Indian Arbitration Act by appointing Arbitrator.</p><p>5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners argued that since undisputedly there is a partnership firm and the entire allegation of the complainant hinges round the said partnership business and when particularly there is a clause in the partnership deed that any dispute between the parties shall be referred to an Arbitrator by appointing one under the Arbitration Act, whose decision shall be final and binding on the parties to which all the partners including the complainant agreed, filing of a complaint petition on flimsy and false allegations against another partner and his son is totally unwarranted.</p><p>6. Taking me into col.6 of the complaint petition of the complainant, learned Counsel for the petitioner pointed out that the alleged occurrence, according to the petitioner, took place on 5.2.2003 which has been mentioned in the said column. But in the said column it is also mentioned that the complainant lodged a report at Golanthara PS regarding the incident on 16.10.2002. He argued vehemently that this is itself is a glaring instance as to how the case is a false and frivolous one initiated to wreck vengeance and when the occurrence itself according to the complainant took place on 5.2.2003, report regarding such occurrence could not have been lodged at the police station on 16.10.2002. Learned counsel also took me through the statements of the other partners of the firm recorded by the I.O. under Section 161, CrPC., who have all stated that the complainant-opposite party No. 2 had dispute relating to the partnership firm with petitioner No. 1 Krushna Chandra Sahu for non-contribution of Rs. l lakh to the firm by complainant-opposite party No. 2. He further took me to the case diary wherein during the investigation of the case the I.O. has categorically mentioned that during the year 2002, due to misunderstanding that prevailed between the parties, the dispute arising out of the partnership firm and the contribution to the same the complainant-opposite party No. 2 reported on 17.10.2002 and 20.1.2003 and petitioner No. 1 Krushna Chandra Sahu had reported on 20.1.2003 and since the allegations related to the partnership firm and both had alleged against each other and no document could be produced to substantiate the allegations the police had made only station diary entries as the dispute was found to be civil nature. Apart from that, the parties became political rivals of each other during the Panchayat and Zilla Parishad elections, although earlier they belonged to one party. Lastly, it was submitted by learned Counsel for the petitioner that the entire episode which has been narrated in the complaint petition is the outcome of the partnership business and if the complainant had any grudge and any doubt regarding misappropriation of partnership fund by the accused petitioner No. l, he could have taken shelter in the appropriate forum by filing civil litigation. Without doing so, he has resorted to criminal prosecution on very flimsy-ground and not only that he has implicated the son of petitioner No. 1 who is an engineering student and prosecuting his study, he submitted.</p><p>7. It is apparent on record that petitioner No. 1 is businessman and it is submitted by learned Counsel for the petitioner that he is an income tax assessee and the allegation that has been brought by the complainant in his complaint petition which was subsequently treated as FIR by order of learned Magistrate is that the petitioners obstructed the complainant on his way while he was proceeding in his motor-cycle, threatened him, dealt pushes and fist blows, criminally intimidated him and took away cash of Rs. 20,000/- from his pocket. On the face of all these earlier disputes between the parties allegations and counter allegations against each other and political rivalry and the other facts that I have discussed in the preceding paragraphs relating to. the report about this incident to the police even before it took place, makes the matter highly suspicious, rather improbable.</p><p>8. Learned Addl. Standing Counsel appearing for the State submitted that enmity being, a double edged weapon and in the instant case when the police has submitted charge-sheet and the learned Magistrate has taken cognizance of the offence basing on the same, the order of cognizance should not be quashed as the truth or otherwise of the matter can be ascertained only after a legitimate trial of the petitioners in the Court of learned Magistrate. Learned counsel for the petitioner, on the other hand, relying on a decision reported in : 1992CriLJ527 (State of Haryana v. Ch. Bhajanlal and Ors.) submitted in the light of the said judgment that in the instant case, the FIR of the complainant, even it is taken on its face value and accepted in its entirety it does not constitute any offence or make out any case against the petitioners. He also submitted that the allegations in the complaint/FIR are so absurd and inherently improbable that on the basis of the same no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion. He vehemently urged that this criminal proceeding even manifestly attended with mala fide and the same is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wrecking vengeance on the accused-petitioners with a view to spite them due to private and personal grudge.</p><p>9. On the admitted factual position and the constant rift between the parties which culminated out of partnership firm and subsequent political rivalry has given rise to this criminal case and the valid object behind this lame prosecution, the very nature of the material on which the structure of the prosecution rests are sufficient for this Court to quash the proceeding in the interest of justice as ends of justice are higher than the ends of mere law though justice has got to be administered according to the laws made by the Legislature. In my view, this is a fit case where the inherent power u/s 482, CrPC should be exercised to quash the proceeding as the entire prosecution case rests on false, frivolous and vexatious allegations and to allow continuance of the proceeding would be sheer misuse of the process of the Court.</p><p>10. In the result, I quash the order of cognizance order dated 19.12.2003 in G.R. Case No. 23 of 2003 pending in the Court of J.M.F.C., Patrapur and so also the criminal proceeding.</p><p>11. The Criminal Misc. Case is accordingly allowed.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '2005(II)OLR793',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'State of Orissa and anr.',
		'sub' => 'Criminal',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'krushna-chandra-sahu-vs-state-orissa'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '535665',
	(int) 1 => 'krushna-chandra-sahu-vs-state-orissa'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/535665/krushna-chandra-sahu-vs-state-orissa'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$caseref = '(State of Haryana v. Ch. Bhajanlal and Ors.<br>'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>A.K. Samantaray, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. In this Criminal Misc. Case under Section 482, Cr.P.C. the petitioners who are father and sort have prayed for quashing of the order of cognizance dated 19.12.2003 in G.R. Case No. 23 of 2003 passed by learned J.M.F.C.. Patrapur (GM). Learned Magistrate took cognizance of the offences under Sections 341, 323, 392, 506/34, IPC on the allegation of opposite party No. 2.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. The prosecution case, as it appears from the complaint petition which was subsequently treated as FIR as per the direction of the learned Magistrate under Section 156(3), CrPC, in short is that the complainant-opposite party No. 2 A. Ranga Rao. petitioner No. 1 Krushna Chandra Sahu, Rajendra Kumar Sahu. Basudev Panda. Pravakar Sabat and Prafulla Kumar Sahu constituted a firm in the name and style of 'Madhupriya Estate'. They also executed a partnership deed on 1.8,1998 and according to the terms of the partnership deed they had to share the capital. It is alleged that petitioner No. 1 Krushna Chandra Sahu did not render any account, income and expenditure of the firm to the complainant-partner A. Ranga Rao, For this act of petitioner No. 1 the relationship between the complainant and the petitioner No. 1 soured. When the complainant insisted for rendering accounts petitioner No. 1 did not give the same and misappropriated the firm's money. It is also alleged that the complainant had reported the matter on 15.10.2002 at Golanthara PS, but the police did not take any action on the matter. It is also alleged in the complaint petition that on 5.2.2003 both the petitioner came in a Motor-cycle, rebuked the complainant, threatened him. dealt fist blows and took away cash of Rs. 20,000/- from his pocket when he was proceeding on the canal road towards Berhampur town. On these allegations a complaint petition was filed alleging further that the complainant had been to the police and the police called him 4-5 times, but ultimately did not take any action. The said complaint petition filed before the learned Magistrate on 17.2.2003 was registered as ICC No. 2/2003 and subsequently the learned Magistrate forwarded the complaint petition to the OIC. Golanthara PS to treat the same as FIR under Section 156(3). CrPC. and to proceed with the same in accordance with law. On receipt of the said complaint from the Court the Golanthara police treated the same as FIR, registered Golanthara PS case No. 98/ 2003 for the offence under Sections 341, 323, 392 and 506/34 IPC and proceeded with the investigation and on completion of the investigation submitted charge-sheet. Although there was no legal material available/collected during the course of the investigation and the learned Magistrate after receipt of the charge-sheet without application of his judicial mind and without considering the backdrop which resulted in the initiation of the case against the petitioners, took cognizance of the offence it is alleged.',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. The salient grounds taken by the petitioners in this application' under Section 482, CrPC to quash the order of cognizance are that there exists dispute of civil nature between the parties arising out of the partnership firm. The complainant-opposite party No. 2 since failed in his attempt to rope in petitioner . No. 1 in another criminal case which he had earlier initiated against him, he has come out with the frivolous complaint to wreck vengeance against the petitioners who are father and son and are in no way involved in the alleged offences.',
	(int) 4 => '<p>4. During the hearing of the petition and also on a perusal of the complaint/FIR and the case diary I come to find that the parties had admittedly started a real estate business and it is also admitted fact that there was a partnership deed executed by the parties to the said partnership firm on 1.8.1998 where this petitioner No. l Krushna Chandra Sahu, A. Ranga Rao, the complainant, Rajendra Kumar Sahu, Basudev Panda, Pravakar Sabat and Prafulla Kumar Sahu were the partners. On a scrutiny of the said partnership deed which contains many clauses regarding the function of the firm, share to be contributed, role which be played by each partner have been specifically mentioned in the said deed. In clause 18 there is specific mention that any dispute or difference arising amongst the partners with respect to the construction or interpretation of the deed or any other matter relating to the partnership affairs shall be referred to arbitration under the provisions of Indian Arbitration Act by appointing Arbitrator.',
	(int) 5 => '<p>5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners argued that since undisputedly there is a partnership firm and the entire allegation of the complainant hinges round the said partnership business and when particularly there is a clause in the partnership deed that any dispute between the parties shall be referred to an Arbitrator by appointing one under the Arbitration Act, whose decision shall be final and binding on the parties to which all the partners including the complainant agreed, filing of a complaint petition on flimsy and false allegations against another partner and his son is totally unwarranted.',
	(int) 6 => '<p>6. Taking me into col.6 of the complaint petition of the complainant, learned Counsel for the petitioner pointed out that the alleged occurrence, according to the petitioner, took place on 5.2.2003 which has been mentioned in the said column. But in the said column it is also mentioned that the complainant lodged a report at Golanthara PS regarding the incident on 16.10.2002. He argued vehemently that this is itself is a glaring instance as to how the case is a false and frivolous one initiated to wreck vengeance and when the occurrence itself according to the complainant took place on 5.2.2003, report regarding such occurrence could not have been lodged at the police station on 16.10.2002. Learned counsel also took me through the statements of the other partners of the firm recorded by the I.O. under Section 161, CrPC., who have all stated that the complainant-opposite party No. 2 had dispute relating to the partnership firm with petitioner No. 1 Krushna Chandra Sahu for non-contribution of Rs. l lakh to the firm by complainant-opposite party No. 2. He further took me to the case diary wherein during the investigation of the case the I.O. has categorically mentioned that during the year 2002, due to misunderstanding that prevailed between the parties, the dispute arising out of the partnership firm and the contribution to the same the complainant-opposite party No. 2 reported on 17.10.2002 and 20.1.2003 and petitioner No. 1 Krushna Chandra Sahu had reported on 20.1.2003 and since the allegations related to the partnership firm and both had alleged against each other and no document could be produced to substantiate the allegations the police had made only station diary entries as the dispute was found to be civil nature. Apart from that, the parties became political rivals of each other during the Panchayat and Zilla Parishad elections, although earlier they belonged to one party. Lastly, it was submitted by learned Counsel for the petitioner that the entire episode which has been narrated in the complaint petition is the outcome of the partnership business and if the complainant had any grudge and any doubt regarding misappropriation of partnership fund by the accused petitioner No. l, he could have taken shelter in the appropriate forum by filing civil litigation. Without doing so, he has resorted to criminal prosecution on very flimsy-ground and not only that he has implicated the son of petitioner No. 1 who is an engineering student and prosecuting his study, he submitted.',
	(int) 7 => '<p>7. It is apparent on record that petitioner No. 1 is businessman and it is submitted by learned Counsel for the petitioner that he is an income tax assessee and the allegation that has been brought by the complainant in his complaint petition which was subsequently treated as FIR by order of learned Magistrate is that the petitioners obstructed the complainant on his way while he was proceeding in his motor-cycle, threatened him, dealt pushes and fist blows, criminally intimidated him and took away cash of Rs. 20,000/- from his pocket. On the face of all these earlier disputes between the parties allegations and counter allegations against each other and political rivalry and the other facts that I have discussed in the preceding paragraphs relating to. the report about this incident to the police even before it took place, makes the matter highly suspicious, rather improbable.',
	(int) 8 => '<p>8. Learned Addl. Standing Counsel appearing for the State submitted that enmity being, a double edged weapon and in the instant case when the police has submitted charge-sheet and the learned Magistrate has taken cognizance of the offence basing on the same, the order of cognizance should not be quashed as the truth or otherwise of the matter can be ascertained only after a legitimate trial of the petitioners in the Court of learned Magistrate. Learned counsel for the petitioner, on the other hand, relying on a decision reported in : 1992CriLJ527 (State of Haryana v. Ch. Bhajanlal and Ors.) submitted in the light of the said judgment that in the instant case, the FIR of the complainant, even it is taken on its face value and accepted in its entirety it does not constitute any offence or make out any case against the petitioners. He also submitted that the allegations in the complaint/FIR are so absurd and inherently improbable that on the basis of the same no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion. He vehemently urged that this criminal proceeding even manifestly attended with mala fide and the same is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wrecking vengeance on the accused-petitioners with a view to spite them due to private and personal grudge.',
	(int) 9 => '<p>9. On the admitted factual position and the constant rift between the parties which culminated out of partnership firm and subsequent political rivalry has given rise to this criminal case and the valid object behind this lame prosecution, the very nature of the material on which the structure of the prosecution rests are sufficient for this Court to quash the proceeding in the interest of justice as ends of justice are higher than the ends of mere law though justice has got to be administered according to the laws made by the Legislature. In my view, this is a fit case where the inherent power u/s 482, CrPC should be exercised to quash the proceeding as the entire prosecution case rests on false, frivolous and vexatious allegations and to allow continuance of the proceeding would be sheer misuse of the process of the Court.',
	(int) 10 => '<p>10. In the result, I quash the order of cognizance order dated 19.12.2003 in G.R. Case No. 23 of 2003 pending in the Court of J.M.F.C., Patrapur and so also the criminal proceeding.',
	(int) 11 => '<p>11. The Criminal Misc. Case is accordingly allowed.<p>',
	(int) 12 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 13
$i = (int) 5
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners argued that since undisputedly there is a partnership firm and the entire allegation of the complainant hinges round the said partnership business and when particularly there is a clause in the partnership deed that any dispute between the parties shall be referred to an Arbitrator by appointing one under the Arbitration Act, whose decision shall be final and binding on the parties to which all the partners including the complainant agreed, filing of a complaint petition on flimsy and false allegations against another partner and his son is totally unwarranted.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Context                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Krushna Chandra Sahu and anr Vs State of Orissa and anr - Citation 535665 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '535665',
			'acts' => 'Arbitration Act; <a href="/act/50902/code-of-criminal-procedure-1973-complete-act">Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1973</a> - Sections 156(3), 161 and 482; Indian Penal Code (IPC) - Sections 34, 323, 341, 392 and 506',
			'appealno' => 'Crl. Misc. Case No. 1814 of 2004',
			'appellant' => 'Krushna Chandra Sahu and anr.',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Krushna Chandra Sahu and anr. Vs. State of Orissa and anr.',
			'casenote' => 'Criminal - Cognizance - Quashing of - Section 156(3) of Code of Criminal Procedure,1973(Cr. PC) and Sections 34, 323, 341, 392 and 506 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) - Respondent and petitioners constituted partnership firm according - Petitioners misappropriated firm's money - Respondent approached police for lodging FIR against petitioners - Police refused to lodged FIR - Respondent filed complaint before Magistrate under Section 156(3) of Cr. P. C. - Magistrate allowed complaint and directed police to lodge FIR - Police officer lodged FIR against petitioners for commission of offence under Sections 341, 323, 392 and 506/34 of IPC and conducted investigation - On completion of investigation, police submitted charge sheet and Magistrate took cognizance of offence against petitioners - Hence, present writ petition filed seeking quashment of cognizance taken - Held, from facts and available material on record it established that respondent falsely implicated petitioners in present case due to dispute arose between them in relation to partnership firm running by them - Sufficient ground exist behind present lame prosecution and sufficient reasons and evidences exist to quash the same - Accordingly, writ petition allowed and order of cognizance quashed  - LABOUR & SERVICES 
Pay Scale:[Tarun Chatterjee & R.M. Lodha,JJ] Fixation - Orissa Service Code (1939), Rule 74(b)  Promotion - Government servant, by virtue of Rule 74(b), gets higher pay than what he was getting immediately before his promotion - Circular Dated 19.3.1983 modifying earlier Circular Dated 18.6.1982 resulting in  reduction of pay of employee on promotion  Held, It is not legal. Statutory Rules cannot be altered or amended by such Executive orders or Circulars or Instructions nor can they replace Statutory Rules.
 -  2 since failed in his attempt to rope in petitioner .No.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '(State of Haryana v. Ch. Bhajanlal and Ors.;',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => ' R.K. Nayak,;P.C. Jena
and;S.P. Dash, Advs.',
			'counseldef' => ' Addl. Standing Counsel for O.P. No. 1 and; R.K. Nanda, Adv. for O.P. No. 2',
			'court' => 'Orissa',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2005-10-07',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => ' A.K. Samantaray, J.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">A.K. Samantaray, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. In this Criminal Misc. Case under Section 482, Cr.P.C. the petitioners who are father and sort have prayed for quashing of the order of cognizance dated 19.12.2003 in G.R. Case No. 23 of 2003 passed by learned J.M.F.C.. Patrapur (GM). Learned Magistrate took cognizance of the offences under Sections 341, 323, 392, 506/34, IPC on the allegation of opposite party No. 2.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The prosecution case, as it appears from the complaint petition which was subsequently treated as FIR as per the direction of the learned Magistrate under Section 156(3), CrPC, in short is that the complainant-opposite party No. 2 A. Ranga Rao. petitioner No. 1 Krushna Chandra Sahu, Rajendra Kumar Sahu. Basudev Panda. Pravakar Sabat and Prafulla Kumar Sahu constituted a firm in the name and style of 'Madhupriya Estate'. They also executed a partnership deed on 1.8,1998 and according to the terms of the partnership deed they had to share the capital. It is alleged that petitioner No. 1 Krushna Chandra Sahu did not render any account, income and expenditure of the firm to the complainant-partner A. Ranga Rao, For this act of petitioner No. 1 the relationship between the complainant and the petitioner No. 1 soured. When the complainant insisted for rendering accounts petitioner No. 1 did not give the same and misappropriated the firm's money. It is also alleged that the complainant had reported the matter on 15.10.2002 at Golanthara PS, but the police did not take any action on the matter. It is also alleged in the complaint petition that on 5.2.2003 both the petitioner came in a Motor-cycle, rebuked the complainant, threatened him. dealt fist blows and took away cash of Rs. 20,000/- from his pocket when he was proceeding on the canal road towards Berhampur town. On these allegations a complaint petition was filed alleging further that the complainant had been to the police and the police called him 4-5 times, but ultimately did not take any action. The said complaint petition filed before the learned Magistrate on 17.2.2003 was registered as ICC No. 2/2003 and subsequently the learned Magistrate forwarded the complaint petition to the OIC. Golanthara PS to treat the same as FIR under Section 156(3). CrPC. and to proceed with the same in accordance with law. On receipt of the said complaint from the Court the Golanthara police treated the same as FIR, registered Golanthara PS case No. 98/ 2003 for the offence under Sections 341, 323, 392 and 506/34 IPC and proceeded with the investigation and on completion of the investigation submitted charge-sheet. Although there was no legal material available/collected during the course of the investigation and the learned Magistrate after receipt of the charge-sheet without application of his judicial mind and without considering the backdrop which resulted in the initiation of the case against the petitioners, took cognizance of the offence it is alleged.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. The salient grounds taken by the petitioners in this application' under Section 482, CrPC to quash the order of cognizance are that there exists dispute of civil nature between the parties arising out of the partnership firm. The complainant-opposite party No. 2 since failed in his attempt to rope in petitioner . No. 1 in another criminal case which he had earlier initiated against him, he has come out with the frivolous complaint to wreck vengeance against the petitioners who are father and son and are in no way involved in the alleged offences.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. During the hearing of the petition and also on a perusal of the complaint/FIR and the case diary I come to find that the parties had admittedly started a real estate business and it is also admitted fact that there was a partnership deed executed by the parties to the said partnership firm on 1.8.1998 where this petitioner No. l Krushna Chandra Sahu, A. Ranga Rao, the complainant, Rajendra Kumar Sahu, Basudev Panda, Pravakar Sabat and Prafulla Kumar Sahu were the partners. On a scrutiny of the said partnership deed which contains many clauses regarding the function of the firm, share to be contributed, role which be played by each partner have been specifically mentioned in the said deed. In clause 18 there is specific mention that any dispute or difference arising amongst the partners with respect to the construction or interpretation of the deed or any other matter relating to the partnership affairs shall be referred to arbitration under the provisions of Indian Arbitration Act by appointing Arbitrator.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners argued that since undisputedly there is a partnership firm and the entire allegation of the complainant hinges round the said partnership business and when particularly there is a clause in the partnership deed that any dispute between the parties shall be referred to an Arbitrator by appointing one under the Arbitration Act, whose decision shall be final and binding on the parties to which all the partners including the complainant agreed, filing of a complaint petition on flimsy and false allegations against another partner and his son is totally unwarranted.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. Taking me into col.6 of the complaint petition of the complainant, learned Counsel for the petitioner pointed out that the alleged occurrence, according to the petitioner, took place on 5.2.2003 which has been mentioned in the said column. But in the said column it is also mentioned that the complainant lodged a report at Golanthara PS regarding the incident on 16.10.2002. He argued vehemently that this is itself is a glaring instance as to how the case is a false and frivolous one initiated to wreck vengeance and when the occurrence itself according to the complainant took place on 5.2.2003, report regarding such occurrence could not have been lodged at the police station on 16.10.2002. Learned counsel also took me through the statements of the other partners of the firm recorded by the I.O. under Section 161, CrPC., who have all stated that the complainant-opposite party No. 2 had dispute relating to the partnership firm with petitioner No. 1 Krushna Chandra Sahu for non-contribution of Rs. l lakh to the firm by complainant-opposite party No. 2. He further took me to the case diary wherein during the investigation of the case the I.O. has categorically mentioned that during the year 2002, due to misunderstanding that prevailed between the parties, the dispute arising out of the partnership firm and the contribution to the same the complainant-opposite party No. 2 reported on 17.10.2002 and 20.1.2003 and petitioner No. 1 Krushna Chandra Sahu had reported on 20.1.2003 and since the allegations related to the partnership firm and both had alleged against each other and no document could be produced to substantiate the allegations the police had made only station diary entries as the dispute was found to be civil nature. Apart from that, the parties became political rivals of each other during the Panchayat and Zilla Parishad elections, although earlier they belonged to one party. Lastly, it was submitted by learned Counsel for the petitioner that the entire episode which has been narrated in the complaint petition is the outcome of the partnership business and if the complainant had any grudge and any doubt regarding misappropriation of partnership fund by the accused petitioner No. l, he could have taken shelter in the appropriate forum by filing civil litigation. Without doing so, he has resorted to criminal prosecution on very flimsy-ground and not only that he has implicated the son of petitioner No. 1 who is an engineering student and prosecuting his study, he submitted.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. It is apparent on record that petitioner No. 1 is businessman and it is submitted by learned Counsel for the petitioner that he is an income tax assessee and the allegation that has been brought by the complainant in his complaint petition which was subsequently treated as FIR by order of learned Magistrate is that the petitioners obstructed the complainant on his way while he was proceeding in his motor-cycle, threatened him, dealt pushes and fist blows, criminally intimidated him and took away cash of Rs. 20,000/- from his pocket. On the face of all these earlier disputes between the parties allegations and counter allegations against each other and political rivalry and the other facts that I have discussed in the preceding paragraphs relating to. the report about this incident to the police even before it took place, makes the matter highly suspicious, rather improbable.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. Learned Addl. Standing Counsel appearing for the State submitted that enmity being, a double edged weapon and in the instant case when the police has submitted charge-sheet and the learned Magistrate has taken cognizance of the offence basing on the same, the order of cognizance should not be quashed as the truth or otherwise of the matter can be ascertained only after a legitimate trial of the petitioners in the Court of learned Magistrate. Learned counsel for the petitioner, on the other hand, relying on a decision reported in : 1992CriLJ527 (State of Haryana v. Ch. Bhajanlal and Ors.) submitted in the light of the said judgment that in the instant case, the FIR of the complainant, even it is taken on its face value and accepted in its entirety it does not constitute any offence or make out any case against the petitioners. He also submitted that the allegations in the complaint/FIR are so absurd and inherently improbable that on the basis of the same no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion. He vehemently urged that this criminal proceeding even manifestly attended with mala fide and the same is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wrecking vengeance on the accused-petitioners with a view to spite them due to private and personal grudge.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. On the admitted factual position and the constant rift between the parties which culminated out of partnership firm and subsequent political rivalry has given rise to this criminal case and the valid object behind this lame prosecution, the very nature of the material on which the structure of the prosecution rests are sufficient for this Court to quash the proceeding in the interest of justice as ends of justice are higher than the ends of mere law though justice has got to be administered according to the laws made by the Legislature. In my view, this is a fit case where the inherent power u/s 482, CrPC should be exercised to quash the proceeding as the entire prosecution case rests on false, frivolous and vexatious allegations and to allow continuance of the proceeding would be sheer misuse of the process of the Court.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. In the result, I quash the order of cognizance order dated 19.12.2003 in G.R. Case No. 23 of 2003 pending in the Court of J.M.F.C., Patrapur and so also the criminal proceeding.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">11. The Criminal Misc. Case is accordingly allowed.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '2005(II)OLR793',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'State of Orissa and anr.',
			'sub' => 'Criminal',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'krushna-chandra-sahu-vs-state-orissa',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '535665',
		(int) 1 => 'krushna-chandra-sahu-vs-state-orissa'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Krushna Chandra Sahu and anr Vs State of Orissa and anr - Citation 535665 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '535665',
		'acts' => 'Arbitration Act; <a href="/act/50902/code-of-criminal-procedure-1973-complete-act">Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1973</a> - Sections 156(3), 161 and 482; Indian Penal Code (IPC) - Sections 34, 323, 341, 392 and 506',
		'appealno' => 'Crl. Misc. Case No. 1814 of 2004',
		'appellant' => 'Krushna Chandra Sahu and anr.',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Krushna Chandra Sahu and anr. Vs. State of Orissa and anr.',
		'casenote' => 'Criminal - Cognizance - Quashing of - Section 156(3) of Code of Criminal Procedure,1973(Cr. PC) and Sections 34, 323, 341, 392 and 506 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) - Respondent and petitioners constituted partnership firm according - Petitioners misappropriated firm's money - Respondent approached police for lodging FIR against petitioners - Police refused to lodged FIR - Respondent filed complaint before Magistrate under Section 156(3) of Cr. P. C. - Magistrate allowed complaint and directed police to lodge FIR - Police officer lodged FIR against petitioners for commission of offence under Sections 341, 323, 392 and 506/34 of IPC and conducted investigation - On completion of investigation, police submitted charge sheet and Magistrate took cognizance of offence against petitioners - Hence, present writ petition filed seeking quashment of cognizance taken - Held, from facts and available material on record it established that respondent falsely implicated petitioners in present case due to dispute arose between them in relation to partnership firm running by them - Sufficient ground exist behind present lame prosecution and sufficient reasons and evidences exist to quash the same - Accordingly, writ petition allowed and order of cognizance quashed  - LABOUR & SERVICES 
Pay Scale:[Tarun Chatterjee & R.M. Lodha,JJ] Fixation - Orissa Service Code (1939), Rule 74(b)  Promotion - Government servant, by virtue of Rule 74(b), gets higher pay than what he was getting immediately before his promotion - Circular Dated 19.3.1983 modifying earlier Circular Dated 18.6.1982 resulting in  reduction of pay of employee on promotion  Held, It is not legal. Statutory Rules cannot be altered or amended by such Executive orders or Circulars or Instructions nor can they replace Statutory Rules.
 -  2 since failed in his attempt to rope in petitioner .No.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '(State of Haryana v. Ch. Bhajanlal and Ors.;',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => ' R.K. Nayak,;P.C. Jena
and;S.P. Dash, Advs.',
		'counseldef' => ' Addl. Standing Counsel for O.P. No. 1 and; R.K. Nanda, Adv. for O.P. No. 2',
		'court' => 'Orissa',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2005-10-07',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => ' A.K. Samantaray, J.',
		'judgement' => '<p>A.K. Samantaray, J.</p><p>1. In this Criminal Misc. Case under Section 482, Cr.P.C. the petitioners who are father and sort have prayed for quashing of the order of cognizance dated 19.12.2003 in G.R. Case No. 23 of 2003 passed by learned J.M.F.C.. Patrapur (GM). Learned Magistrate took cognizance of the offences under Sections 341, 323, 392, 506/34, IPC on the allegation of opposite party No. 2.</p><p>2. The prosecution case, as it appears from the complaint petition which was subsequently treated as FIR as per the direction of the learned Magistrate under Section 156(3), CrPC, in short is that the complainant-opposite party No. 2 A. Ranga Rao. petitioner No. 1 Krushna Chandra Sahu, Rajendra Kumar Sahu. Basudev Panda. Pravakar Sabat and Prafulla Kumar Sahu constituted a firm in the name and style of 'Madhupriya Estate'. They also executed a partnership deed on 1.8,1998 and according to the terms of the partnership deed they had to share the capital. It is alleged that petitioner No. 1 Krushna Chandra Sahu did not render any account, income and expenditure of the firm to the complainant-partner A. Ranga Rao, For this act of petitioner No. 1 the relationship between the complainant and the petitioner No. 1 soured. When the complainant insisted for rendering accounts petitioner No. 1 did not give the same and misappropriated the firm's money. It is also alleged that the complainant had reported the matter on 15.10.2002 at Golanthara PS, but the police did not take any action on the matter. It is also alleged in the complaint petition that on 5.2.2003 both the petitioner came in a Motor-cycle, rebuked the complainant, threatened him. dealt fist blows and took away cash of Rs. 20,000/- from his pocket when he was proceeding on the canal road towards Berhampur town. On these allegations a complaint petition was filed alleging further that the complainant had been to the police and the police called him 4-5 times, but ultimately did not take any action. The said complaint petition filed before the learned Magistrate on 17.2.2003 was registered as ICC No. 2/2003 and subsequently the learned Magistrate forwarded the complaint petition to the OIC. Golanthara PS to treat the same as FIR under Section 156(3). CrPC. and to proceed with the same in accordance with law. On receipt of the said complaint from the Court the Golanthara police treated the same as FIR, registered Golanthara PS case No. 98/ 2003 for the offence under Sections 341, 323, 392 and 506/34 IPC and proceeded with the investigation and on completion of the investigation submitted charge-sheet. Although there was no legal material available/collected during the course of the investigation and the learned Magistrate after receipt of the charge-sheet without application of his judicial mind and without considering the backdrop which resulted in the initiation of the case against the petitioners, took cognizance of the offence it is alleged.</p><p>3. The salient grounds taken by the petitioners in this application' under Section 482, CrPC to quash the order of cognizance are that there exists dispute of civil nature between the parties arising out of the partnership firm. The complainant-opposite party No. 2 since failed in his attempt to rope in petitioner . No. 1 in another criminal case which he had earlier initiated against him, he has come out with the frivolous complaint to wreck vengeance against the petitioners who are father and son and are in no way involved in the alleged offences.</p><p>4. During the hearing of the petition and also on a perusal of the complaint/FIR and the case diary I come to find that the parties had admittedly started a real estate business and it is also admitted fact that there was a partnership deed executed by the parties to the said partnership firm on 1.8.1998 where this petitioner No. l Krushna Chandra Sahu, A. Ranga Rao, the complainant, Rajendra Kumar Sahu, Basudev Panda, Pravakar Sabat and Prafulla Kumar Sahu were the partners. On a scrutiny of the said partnership deed which contains many clauses regarding the function of the firm, share to be contributed, role which be played by each partner have been specifically mentioned in the said deed. In clause 18 there is specific mention that any dispute or difference arising amongst the partners with respect to the construction or interpretation of the deed or any other matter relating to the partnership affairs shall be referred to arbitration under the provisions of Indian Arbitration Act by appointing Arbitrator.</p><p>5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners argued that since undisputedly there is a partnership firm and the entire allegation of the complainant hinges round the said partnership business and when particularly there is a clause in the partnership deed that any dispute between the parties shall be referred to an Arbitrator by appointing one under the Arbitration Act, whose decision shall be final and binding on the parties to which all the partners including the complainant agreed, filing of a complaint petition on flimsy and false allegations against another partner and his son is totally unwarranted.</p><p>6. Taking me into col.6 of the complaint petition of the complainant, learned Counsel for the petitioner pointed out that the alleged occurrence, according to the petitioner, took place on 5.2.2003 which has been mentioned in the said column. But in the said column it is also mentioned that the complainant lodged a report at Golanthara PS regarding the incident on 16.10.2002. He argued vehemently that this is itself is a glaring instance as to how the case is a false and frivolous one initiated to wreck vengeance and when the occurrence itself according to the complainant took place on 5.2.2003, report regarding such occurrence could not have been lodged at the police station on 16.10.2002. Learned counsel also took me through the statements of the other partners of the firm recorded by the I.O. under Section 161, CrPC., who have all stated that the complainant-opposite party No. 2 had dispute relating to the partnership firm with petitioner No. 1 Krushna Chandra Sahu for non-contribution of Rs. l lakh to the firm by complainant-opposite party No. 2. He further took me to the case diary wherein during the investigation of the case the I.O. has categorically mentioned that during the year 2002, due to misunderstanding that prevailed between the parties, the dispute arising out of the partnership firm and the contribution to the same the complainant-opposite party No. 2 reported on 17.10.2002 and 20.1.2003 and petitioner No. 1 Krushna Chandra Sahu had reported on 20.1.2003 and since the allegations related to the partnership firm and both had alleged against each other and no document could be produced to substantiate the allegations the police had made only station diary entries as the dispute was found to be civil nature. Apart from that, the parties became political rivals of each other during the Panchayat and Zilla Parishad elections, although earlier they belonged to one party. Lastly, it was submitted by learned Counsel for the petitioner that the entire episode which has been narrated in the complaint petition is the outcome of the partnership business and if the complainant had any grudge and any doubt regarding misappropriation of partnership fund by the accused petitioner No. l, he could have taken shelter in the appropriate forum by filing civil litigation. Without doing so, he has resorted to criminal prosecution on very flimsy-ground and not only that he has implicated the son of petitioner No. 1 who is an engineering student and prosecuting his study, he submitted.</p><p>7. It is apparent on record that petitioner No. 1 is businessman and it is submitted by learned Counsel for the petitioner that he is an income tax assessee and the allegation that has been brought by the complainant in his complaint petition which was subsequently treated as FIR by order of learned Magistrate is that the petitioners obstructed the complainant on his way while he was proceeding in his motor-cycle, threatened him, dealt pushes and fist blows, criminally intimidated him and took away cash of Rs. 20,000/- from his pocket. On the face of all these earlier disputes between the parties allegations and counter allegations against each other and political rivalry and the other facts that I have discussed in the preceding paragraphs relating to. the report about this incident to the police even before it took place, makes the matter highly suspicious, rather improbable.</p><p>8. Learned Addl. Standing Counsel appearing for the State submitted that enmity being, a double edged weapon and in the instant case when the police has submitted charge-sheet and the learned Magistrate has taken cognizance of the offence basing on the same, the order of cognizance should not be quashed as the truth or otherwise of the matter can be ascertained only after a legitimate trial of the petitioners in the Court of learned Magistrate. Learned counsel for the petitioner, on the other hand, relying on a decision reported in : 1992CriLJ527 (State of Haryana v. Ch. Bhajanlal and Ors.) submitted in the light of the said judgment that in the instant case, the FIR of the complainant, even it is taken on its face value and accepted in its entirety it does not constitute any offence or make out any case against the petitioners. He also submitted that the allegations in the complaint/FIR are so absurd and inherently improbable that on the basis of the same no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion. He vehemently urged that this criminal proceeding even manifestly attended with mala fide and the same is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wrecking vengeance on the accused-petitioners with a view to spite them due to private and personal grudge.</p><p>9. On the admitted factual position and the constant rift between the parties which culminated out of partnership firm and subsequent political rivalry has given rise to this criminal case and the valid object behind this lame prosecution, the very nature of the material on which the structure of the prosecution rests are sufficient for this Court to quash the proceeding in the interest of justice as ends of justice are higher than the ends of mere law though justice has got to be administered according to the laws made by the Legislature. In my view, this is a fit case where the inherent power u/s 482, CrPC should be exercised to quash the proceeding as the entire prosecution case rests on false, frivolous and vexatious allegations and to allow continuance of the proceeding would be sheer misuse of the process of the Court.</p><p>10. In the result, I quash the order of cognizance order dated 19.12.2003 in G.R. Case No. 23 of 2003 pending in the Court of J.M.F.C., Patrapur and so also the criminal proceeding.</p><p>11. The Criminal Misc. Case is accordingly allowed.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '2005(II)OLR793',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'State of Orissa and anr.',
		'sub' => 'Criminal',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'krushna-chandra-sahu-vs-state-orissa'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '535665',
	(int) 1 => 'krushna-chandra-sahu-vs-state-orissa'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/535665/krushna-chandra-sahu-vs-state-orissa'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$caseref = '(State of Haryana v. Ch. Bhajanlal and Ors.<br>'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>A.K. Samantaray, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. In this Criminal Misc. Case under Section 482, Cr.P.C. the petitioners who are father and sort have prayed for quashing of the order of cognizance dated 19.12.2003 in G.R. Case No. 23 of 2003 passed by learned J.M.F.C.. Patrapur (GM). Learned Magistrate took cognizance of the offences under Sections 341, 323, 392, 506/34, IPC on the allegation of opposite party No. 2.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. The prosecution case, as it appears from the complaint petition which was subsequently treated as FIR as per the direction of the learned Magistrate under Section 156(3), CrPC, in short is that the complainant-opposite party No. 2 A. Ranga Rao. petitioner No. 1 Krushna Chandra Sahu, Rajendra Kumar Sahu. Basudev Panda. Pravakar Sabat and Prafulla Kumar Sahu constituted a firm in the name and style of 'Madhupriya Estate'. They also executed a partnership deed on 1.8,1998 and according to the terms of the partnership deed they had to share the capital. It is alleged that petitioner No. 1 Krushna Chandra Sahu did not render any account, income and expenditure of the firm to the complainant-partner A. Ranga Rao, For this act of petitioner No. 1 the relationship between the complainant and the petitioner No. 1 soured. When the complainant insisted for rendering accounts petitioner No. 1 did not give the same and misappropriated the firm's money. It is also alleged that the complainant had reported the matter on 15.10.2002 at Golanthara PS, but the police did not take any action on the matter. It is also alleged in the complaint petition that on 5.2.2003 both the petitioner came in a Motor-cycle, rebuked the complainant, threatened him. dealt fist blows and took away cash of Rs. 20,000/- from his pocket when he was proceeding on the canal road towards Berhampur town. On these allegations a complaint petition was filed alleging further that the complainant had been to the police and the police called him 4-5 times, but ultimately did not take any action. The said complaint petition filed before the learned Magistrate on 17.2.2003 was registered as ICC No. 2/2003 and subsequently the learned Magistrate forwarded the complaint petition to the OIC. Golanthara PS to treat the same as FIR under Section 156(3). CrPC. and to proceed with the same in accordance with law. On receipt of the said complaint from the Court the Golanthara police treated the same as FIR, registered Golanthara PS case No. 98/ 2003 for the offence under Sections 341, 323, 392 and 506/34 IPC and proceeded with the investigation and on completion of the investigation submitted charge-sheet. Although there was no legal material available/collected during the course of the investigation and the learned Magistrate after receipt of the charge-sheet without application of his judicial mind and without considering the backdrop which resulted in the initiation of the case against the petitioners, took cognizance of the offence it is alleged.',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. The salient grounds taken by the petitioners in this application' under Section 482, CrPC to quash the order of cognizance are that there exists dispute of civil nature between the parties arising out of the partnership firm. The complainant-opposite party No. 2 since failed in his attempt to rope in petitioner . No. 1 in another criminal case which he had earlier initiated against him, he has come out with the frivolous complaint to wreck vengeance against the petitioners who are father and son and are in no way involved in the alleged offences.',
	(int) 4 => '<p>4. During the hearing of the petition and also on a perusal of the complaint/FIR and the case diary I come to find that the parties had admittedly started a real estate business and it is also admitted fact that there was a partnership deed executed by the parties to the said partnership firm on 1.8.1998 where this petitioner No. l Krushna Chandra Sahu, A. Ranga Rao, the complainant, Rajendra Kumar Sahu, Basudev Panda, Pravakar Sabat and Prafulla Kumar Sahu were the partners. On a scrutiny of the said partnership deed which contains many clauses regarding the function of the firm, share to be contributed, role which be played by each partner have been specifically mentioned in the said deed. In clause 18 there is specific mention that any dispute or difference arising amongst the partners with respect to the construction or interpretation of the deed or any other matter relating to the partnership affairs shall be referred to arbitration under the provisions of Indian Arbitration Act by appointing Arbitrator.',
	(int) 5 => '<p>5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners argued that since undisputedly there is a partnership firm and the entire allegation of the complainant hinges round the said partnership business and when particularly there is a clause in the partnership deed that any dispute between the parties shall be referred to an Arbitrator by appointing one under the Arbitration Act, whose decision shall be final and binding on the parties to which all the partners including the complainant agreed, filing of a complaint petition on flimsy and false allegations against another partner and his son is totally unwarranted.',
	(int) 6 => '<p>6. Taking me into col.6 of the complaint petition of the complainant, learned Counsel for the petitioner pointed out that the alleged occurrence, according to the petitioner, took place on 5.2.2003 which has been mentioned in the said column. But in the said column it is also mentioned that the complainant lodged a report at Golanthara PS regarding the incident on 16.10.2002. He argued vehemently that this is itself is a glaring instance as to how the case is a false and frivolous one initiated to wreck vengeance and when the occurrence itself according to the complainant took place on 5.2.2003, report regarding such occurrence could not have been lodged at the police station on 16.10.2002. Learned counsel also took me through the statements of the other partners of the firm recorded by the I.O. under Section 161, CrPC., who have all stated that the complainant-opposite party No. 2 had dispute relating to the partnership firm with petitioner No. 1 Krushna Chandra Sahu for non-contribution of Rs. l lakh to the firm by complainant-opposite party No. 2. He further took me to the case diary wherein during the investigation of the case the I.O. has categorically mentioned that during the year 2002, due to misunderstanding that prevailed between the parties, the dispute arising out of the partnership firm and the contribution to the same the complainant-opposite party No. 2 reported on 17.10.2002 and 20.1.2003 and petitioner No. 1 Krushna Chandra Sahu had reported on 20.1.2003 and since the allegations related to the partnership firm and both had alleged against each other and no document could be produced to substantiate the allegations the police had made only station diary entries as the dispute was found to be civil nature. Apart from that, the parties became political rivals of each other during the Panchayat and Zilla Parishad elections, although earlier they belonged to one party. Lastly, it was submitted by learned Counsel for the petitioner that the entire episode which has been narrated in the complaint petition is the outcome of the partnership business and if the complainant had any grudge and any doubt regarding misappropriation of partnership fund by the accused petitioner No. l, he could have taken shelter in the appropriate forum by filing civil litigation. Without doing so, he has resorted to criminal prosecution on very flimsy-ground and not only that he has implicated the son of petitioner No. 1 who is an engineering student and prosecuting his study, he submitted.',
	(int) 7 => '<p>7. It is apparent on record that petitioner No. 1 is businessman and it is submitted by learned Counsel for the petitioner that he is an income tax assessee and the allegation that has been brought by the complainant in his complaint petition which was subsequently treated as FIR by order of learned Magistrate is that the petitioners obstructed the complainant on his way while he was proceeding in his motor-cycle, threatened him, dealt pushes and fist blows, criminally intimidated him and took away cash of Rs. 20,000/- from his pocket. On the face of all these earlier disputes between the parties allegations and counter allegations against each other and political rivalry and the other facts that I have discussed in the preceding paragraphs relating to. the report about this incident to the police even before it took place, makes the matter highly suspicious, rather improbable.',
	(int) 8 => '<p>8. Learned Addl. Standing Counsel appearing for the State submitted that enmity being, a double edged weapon and in the instant case when the police has submitted charge-sheet and the learned Magistrate has taken cognizance of the offence basing on the same, the order of cognizance should not be quashed as the truth or otherwise of the matter can be ascertained only after a legitimate trial of the petitioners in the Court of learned Magistrate. Learned counsel for the petitioner, on the other hand, relying on a decision reported in : 1992CriLJ527 (State of Haryana v. Ch. Bhajanlal and Ors.) submitted in the light of the said judgment that in the instant case, the FIR of the complainant, even it is taken on its face value and accepted in its entirety it does not constitute any offence or make out any case against the petitioners. He also submitted that the allegations in the complaint/FIR are so absurd and inherently improbable that on the basis of the same no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion. He vehemently urged that this criminal proceeding even manifestly attended with mala fide and the same is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wrecking vengeance on the accused-petitioners with a view to spite them due to private and personal grudge.',
	(int) 9 => '<p>9. On the admitted factual position and the constant rift between the parties which culminated out of partnership firm and subsequent political rivalry has given rise to this criminal case and the valid object behind this lame prosecution, the very nature of the material on which the structure of the prosecution rests are sufficient for this Court to quash the proceeding in the interest of justice as ends of justice are higher than the ends of mere law though justice has got to be administered according to the laws made by the Legislature. In my view, this is a fit case where the inherent power u/s 482, CrPC should be exercised to quash the proceeding as the entire prosecution case rests on false, frivolous and vexatious allegations and to allow continuance of the proceeding would be sheer misuse of the process of the Court.',
	(int) 10 => '<p>10. In the result, I quash the order of cognizance order dated 19.12.2003 in G.R. Case No. 23 of 2003 pending in the Court of J.M.F.C., Patrapur and so also the criminal proceeding.',
	(int) 11 => '<p>11. The Criminal Misc. Case is accordingly allowed.<p>',
	(int) 12 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 13
$i = (int) 6
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

6. Taking me into col.6 of the complaint petition of the complainant, learned Counsel for the petitioner pointed out that the alleged occurrence, according to the petitioner, took place on 5.2.2003 which has been mentioned in the said column. But in the said column it is also mentioned that the complainant lodged a report at Golanthara PS regarding the incident on 16.10.2002. He argued vehemently that this is itself is a glaring instance as to how the case is a false and frivolous one initiated to wreck vengeance and when the occurrence itself according to the complainant took place on 5.2.2003, report regarding such occurrence could not have been lodged at the police station on 16.10.2002. Learned counsel also took me through the statements of the other partners of the firm recorded by the I.O. under Section 161, CrPC., who have all stated that the complainant-opposite party No. 2 had dispute relating to the partnership firm with petitioner No. 1 Krushna Chandra Sahu for non-contribution of Rs. l lakh to the firm by complainant-opposite party No. 2. He further took me to the case diary wherein during the investigation of the case the I.O. has categorically mentioned that during the year 2002, due to misunderstanding that prevailed between the parties, the dispute arising out of the partnership firm and the contribution to the same the complainant-opposite party No. 2 reported on 17.10.2002 and 20.1.2003 and petitioner No. 1 Krushna Chandra Sahu had reported on 20.1.2003 and since the allegations related to the partnership firm and both had alleged against each other and no document could be produced to substantiate the allegations the police had made only station diary entries as the dispute was found to be civil nature. Apart from that, the parties became political rivals of each other during the Panchayat and Zilla Parishad elections, although earlier they belonged to one party. Lastly, it was submitted by learned Counsel for the petitioner that the entire episode which has been narrated in the complaint petition is the outcome of the partnership business and if the complainant had any grudge and any doubt regarding misappropriation of partnership fund by the accused petitioner No. l, he could have taken shelter in the appropriate forum by filing civil litigation. Without doing so, he has resorted to criminal prosecution on very flimsy-ground and not only that he has implicated the son of petitioner No. 1 who is an engineering student and prosecuting his study, he submitted.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Context                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Krushna Chandra Sahu and anr Vs State of Orissa and anr - Citation 535665 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '535665',
			'acts' => 'Arbitration Act; <a href="/act/50902/code-of-criminal-procedure-1973-complete-act">Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1973</a> - Sections 156(3), 161 and 482; Indian Penal Code (IPC) - Sections 34, 323, 341, 392 and 506',
			'appealno' => 'Crl. Misc. Case No. 1814 of 2004',
			'appellant' => 'Krushna Chandra Sahu and anr.',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Krushna Chandra Sahu and anr. Vs. State of Orissa and anr.',
			'casenote' => 'Criminal - Cognizance - Quashing of - Section 156(3) of Code of Criminal Procedure,1973(Cr. PC) and Sections 34, 323, 341, 392 and 506 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) - Respondent and petitioners constituted partnership firm according - Petitioners misappropriated firm's money - Respondent approached police for lodging FIR against petitioners - Police refused to lodged FIR - Respondent filed complaint before Magistrate under Section 156(3) of Cr. P. C. - Magistrate allowed complaint and directed police to lodge FIR - Police officer lodged FIR against petitioners for commission of offence under Sections 341, 323, 392 and 506/34 of IPC and conducted investigation - On completion of investigation, police submitted charge sheet and Magistrate took cognizance of offence against petitioners - Hence, present writ petition filed seeking quashment of cognizance taken - Held, from facts and available material on record it established that respondent falsely implicated petitioners in present case due to dispute arose between them in relation to partnership firm running by them - Sufficient ground exist behind present lame prosecution and sufficient reasons and evidences exist to quash the same - Accordingly, writ petition allowed and order of cognizance quashed  - LABOUR & SERVICES 
Pay Scale:[Tarun Chatterjee & R.M. Lodha,JJ] Fixation - Orissa Service Code (1939), Rule 74(b)  Promotion - Government servant, by virtue of Rule 74(b), gets higher pay than what he was getting immediately before his promotion - Circular Dated 19.3.1983 modifying earlier Circular Dated 18.6.1982 resulting in  reduction of pay of employee on promotion  Held, It is not legal. Statutory Rules cannot be altered or amended by such Executive orders or Circulars or Instructions nor can they replace Statutory Rules.
 -  2 since failed in his attempt to rope in petitioner .No.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '(State of Haryana v. Ch. Bhajanlal and Ors.;',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => ' R.K. Nayak,;P.C. Jena
and;S.P. Dash, Advs.',
			'counseldef' => ' Addl. Standing Counsel for O.P. No. 1 and; R.K. Nanda, Adv. for O.P. No. 2',
			'court' => 'Orissa',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2005-10-07',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => ' A.K. Samantaray, J.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">A.K. Samantaray, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. In this Criminal Misc. Case under Section 482, Cr.P.C. the petitioners who are father and sort have prayed for quashing of the order of cognizance dated 19.12.2003 in G.R. Case No. 23 of 2003 passed by learned J.M.F.C.. Patrapur (GM). Learned Magistrate took cognizance of the offences under Sections 341, 323, 392, 506/34, IPC on the allegation of opposite party No. 2.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The prosecution case, as it appears from the complaint petition which was subsequently treated as FIR as per the direction of the learned Magistrate under Section 156(3), CrPC, in short is that the complainant-opposite party No. 2 A. Ranga Rao. petitioner No. 1 Krushna Chandra Sahu, Rajendra Kumar Sahu. Basudev Panda. Pravakar Sabat and Prafulla Kumar Sahu constituted a firm in the name and style of 'Madhupriya Estate'. They also executed a partnership deed on 1.8,1998 and according to the terms of the partnership deed they had to share the capital. It is alleged that petitioner No. 1 Krushna Chandra Sahu did not render any account, income and expenditure of the firm to the complainant-partner A. Ranga Rao, For this act of petitioner No. 1 the relationship between the complainant and the petitioner No. 1 soured. When the complainant insisted for rendering accounts petitioner No. 1 did not give the same and misappropriated the firm's money. It is also alleged that the complainant had reported the matter on 15.10.2002 at Golanthara PS, but the police did not take any action on the matter. It is also alleged in the complaint petition that on 5.2.2003 both the petitioner came in a Motor-cycle, rebuked the complainant, threatened him. dealt fist blows and took away cash of Rs. 20,000/- from his pocket when he was proceeding on the canal road towards Berhampur town. On these allegations a complaint petition was filed alleging further that the complainant had been to the police and the police called him 4-5 times, but ultimately did not take any action. The said complaint petition filed before the learned Magistrate on 17.2.2003 was registered as ICC No. 2/2003 and subsequently the learned Magistrate forwarded the complaint petition to the OIC. Golanthara PS to treat the same as FIR under Section 156(3). CrPC. and to proceed with the same in accordance with law. On receipt of the said complaint from the Court the Golanthara police treated the same as FIR, registered Golanthara PS case No. 98/ 2003 for the offence under Sections 341, 323, 392 and 506/34 IPC and proceeded with the investigation and on completion of the investigation submitted charge-sheet. Although there was no legal material available/collected during the course of the investigation and the learned Magistrate after receipt of the charge-sheet without application of his judicial mind and without considering the backdrop which resulted in the initiation of the case against the petitioners, took cognizance of the offence it is alleged.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. The salient grounds taken by the petitioners in this application' under Section 482, CrPC to quash the order of cognizance are that there exists dispute of civil nature between the parties arising out of the partnership firm. The complainant-opposite party No. 2 since failed in his attempt to rope in petitioner . No. 1 in another criminal case which he had earlier initiated against him, he has come out with the frivolous complaint to wreck vengeance against the petitioners who are father and son and are in no way involved in the alleged offences.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. During the hearing of the petition and also on a perusal of the complaint/FIR and the case diary I come to find that the parties had admittedly started a real estate business and it is also admitted fact that there was a partnership deed executed by the parties to the said partnership firm on 1.8.1998 where this petitioner No. l Krushna Chandra Sahu, A. Ranga Rao, the complainant, Rajendra Kumar Sahu, Basudev Panda, Pravakar Sabat and Prafulla Kumar Sahu were the partners. On a scrutiny of the said partnership deed which contains many clauses regarding the function of the firm, share to be contributed, role which be played by each partner have been specifically mentioned in the said deed. In clause 18 there is specific mention that any dispute or difference arising amongst the partners with respect to the construction or interpretation of the deed or any other matter relating to the partnership affairs shall be referred to arbitration under the provisions of Indian Arbitration Act by appointing Arbitrator.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners argued that since undisputedly there is a partnership firm and the entire allegation of the complainant hinges round the said partnership business and when particularly there is a clause in the partnership deed that any dispute between the parties shall be referred to an Arbitrator by appointing one under the Arbitration Act, whose decision shall be final and binding on the parties to which all the partners including the complainant agreed, filing of a complaint petition on flimsy and false allegations against another partner and his son is totally unwarranted.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. Taking me into col.6 of the complaint petition of the complainant, learned Counsel for the petitioner pointed out that the alleged occurrence, according to the petitioner, took place on 5.2.2003 which has been mentioned in the said column. But in the said column it is also mentioned that the complainant lodged a report at Golanthara PS regarding the incident on 16.10.2002. He argued vehemently that this is itself is a glaring instance as to how the case is a false and frivolous one initiated to wreck vengeance and when the occurrence itself according to the complainant took place on 5.2.2003, report regarding such occurrence could not have been lodged at the police station on 16.10.2002. Learned counsel also took me through the statements of the other partners of the firm recorded by the I.O. under Section 161, CrPC., who have all stated that the complainant-opposite party No. 2 had dispute relating to the partnership firm with petitioner No. 1 Krushna Chandra Sahu for non-contribution of Rs. l lakh to the firm by complainant-opposite party No. 2. He further took me to the case diary wherein during the investigation of the case the I.O. has categorically mentioned that during the year 2002, due to misunderstanding that prevailed between the parties, the dispute arising out of the partnership firm and the contribution to the same the complainant-opposite party No. 2 reported on 17.10.2002 and 20.1.2003 and petitioner No. 1 Krushna Chandra Sahu had reported on 20.1.2003 and since the allegations related to the partnership firm and both had alleged against each other and no document could be produced to substantiate the allegations the police had made only station diary entries as the dispute was found to be civil nature. Apart from that, the parties became political rivals of each other during the Panchayat and Zilla Parishad elections, although earlier they belonged to one party. Lastly, it was submitted by learned Counsel for the petitioner that the entire episode which has been narrated in the complaint petition is the outcome of the partnership business and if the complainant had any grudge and any doubt regarding misappropriation of partnership fund by the accused petitioner No. l, he could have taken shelter in the appropriate forum by filing civil litigation. Without doing so, he has resorted to criminal prosecution on very flimsy-ground and not only that he has implicated the son of petitioner No. 1 who is an engineering student and prosecuting his study, he submitted.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. It is apparent on record that petitioner No. 1 is businessman and it is submitted by learned Counsel for the petitioner that he is an income tax assessee and the allegation that has been brought by the complainant in his complaint petition which was subsequently treated as FIR by order of learned Magistrate is that the petitioners obstructed the complainant on his way while he was proceeding in his motor-cycle, threatened him, dealt pushes and fist blows, criminally intimidated him and took away cash of Rs. 20,000/- from his pocket. On the face of all these earlier disputes between the parties allegations and counter allegations against each other and political rivalry and the other facts that I have discussed in the preceding paragraphs relating to. the report about this incident to the police even before it took place, makes the matter highly suspicious, rather improbable.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. Learned Addl. Standing Counsel appearing for the State submitted that enmity being, a double edged weapon and in the instant case when the police has submitted charge-sheet and the learned Magistrate has taken cognizance of the offence basing on the same, the order of cognizance should not be quashed as the truth or otherwise of the matter can be ascertained only after a legitimate trial of the petitioners in the Court of learned Magistrate. Learned counsel for the petitioner, on the other hand, relying on a decision reported in : 1992CriLJ527 (State of Haryana v. Ch. Bhajanlal and Ors.) submitted in the light of the said judgment that in the instant case, the FIR of the complainant, even it is taken on its face value and accepted in its entirety it does not constitute any offence or make out any case against the petitioners. He also submitted that the allegations in the complaint/FIR are so absurd and inherently improbable that on the basis of the same no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion. He vehemently urged that this criminal proceeding even manifestly attended with mala fide and the same is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wrecking vengeance on the accused-petitioners with a view to spite them due to private and personal grudge.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. On the admitted factual position and the constant rift between the parties which culminated out of partnership firm and subsequent political rivalry has given rise to this criminal case and the valid object behind this lame prosecution, the very nature of the material on which the structure of the prosecution rests are sufficient for this Court to quash the proceeding in the interest of justice as ends of justice are higher than the ends of mere law though justice has got to be administered according to the laws made by the Legislature. In my view, this is a fit case where the inherent power u/s 482, CrPC should be exercised to quash the proceeding as the entire prosecution case rests on false, frivolous and vexatious allegations and to allow continuance of the proceeding would be sheer misuse of the process of the Court.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. In the result, I quash the order of cognizance order dated 19.12.2003 in G.R. Case No. 23 of 2003 pending in the Court of J.M.F.C., Patrapur and so also the criminal proceeding.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">11. The Criminal Misc. Case is accordingly allowed.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '2005(II)OLR793',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'State of Orissa and anr.',
			'sub' => 'Criminal',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'krushna-chandra-sahu-vs-state-orissa',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '535665',
		(int) 1 => 'krushna-chandra-sahu-vs-state-orissa'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Krushna Chandra Sahu and anr Vs State of Orissa and anr - Citation 535665 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '535665',
		'acts' => 'Arbitration Act; <a href="/act/50902/code-of-criminal-procedure-1973-complete-act">Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1973</a> - Sections 156(3), 161 and 482; Indian Penal Code (IPC) - Sections 34, 323, 341, 392 and 506',
		'appealno' => 'Crl. Misc. Case No. 1814 of 2004',
		'appellant' => 'Krushna Chandra Sahu and anr.',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Krushna Chandra Sahu and anr. Vs. State of Orissa and anr.',
		'casenote' => 'Criminal - Cognizance - Quashing of - Section 156(3) of Code of Criminal Procedure,1973(Cr. PC) and Sections 34, 323, 341, 392 and 506 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) - Respondent and petitioners constituted partnership firm according - Petitioners misappropriated firm's money - Respondent approached police for lodging FIR against petitioners - Police refused to lodged FIR - Respondent filed complaint before Magistrate under Section 156(3) of Cr. P. C. - Magistrate allowed complaint and directed police to lodge FIR - Police officer lodged FIR against petitioners for commission of offence under Sections 341, 323, 392 and 506/34 of IPC and conducted investigation - On completion of investigation, police submitted charge sheet and Magistrate took cognizance of offence against petitioners - Hence, present writ petition filed seeking quashment of cognizance taken - Held, from facts and available material on record it established that respondent falsely implicated petitioners in present case due to dispute arose between them in relation to partnership firm running by them - Sufficient ground exist behind present lame prosecution and sufficient reasons and evidences exist to quash the same - Accordingly, writ petition allowed and order of cognizance quashed  - LABOUR & SERVICES 
Pay Scale:[Tarun Chatterjee & R.M. Lodha,JJ] Fixation - Orissa Service Code (1939), Rule 74(b)  Promotion - Government servant, by virtue of Rule 74(b), gets higher pay than what he was getting immediately before his promotion - Circular Dated 19.3.1983 modifying earlier Circular Dated 18.6.1982 resulting in  reduction of pay of employee on promotion  Held, It is not legal. Statutory Rules cannot be altered or amended by such Executive orders or Circulars or Instructions nor can they replace Statutory Rules.
 -  2 since failed in his attempt to rope in petitioner .No.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '(State of Haryana v. Ch. Bhajanlal and Ors.;',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => ' R.K. Nayak,;P.C. Jena
and;S.P. Dash, Advs.',
		'counseldef' => ' Addl. Standing Counsel for O.P. No. 1 and; R.K. Nanda, Adv. for O.P. No. 2',
		'court' => 'Orissa',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2005-10-07',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => ' A.K. Samantaray, J.',
		'judgement' => '<p>A.K. Samantaray, J.</p><p>1. In this Criminal Misc. Case under Section 482, Cr.P.C. the petitioners who are father and sort have prayed for quashing of the order of cognizance dated 19.12.2003 in G.R. Case No. 23 of 2003 passed by learned J.M.F.C.. Patrapur (GM). Learned Magistrate took cognizance of the offences under Sections 341, 323, 392, 506/34, IPC on the allegation of opposite party No. 2.</p><p>2. The prosecution case, as it appears from the complaint petition which was subsequently treated as FIR as per the direction of the learned Magistrate under Section 156(3), CrPC, in short is that the complainant-opposite party No. 2 A. Ranga Rao. petitioner No. 1 Krushna Chandra Sahu, Rajendra Kumar Sahu. Basudev Panda. Pravakar Sabat and Prafulla Kumar Sahu constituted a firm in the name and style of 'Madhupriya Estate'. They also executed a partnership deed on 1.8,1998 and according to the terms of the partnership deed they had to share the capital. It is alleged that petitioner No. 1 Krushna Chandra Sahu did not render any account, income and expenditure of the firm to the complainant-partner A. Ranga Rao, For this act of petitioner No. 1 the relationship between the complainant and the petitioner No. 1 soured. When the complainant insisted for rendering accounts petitioner No. 1 did not give the same and misappropriated the firm's money. It is also alleged that the complainant had reported the matter on 15.10.2002 at Golanthara PS, but the police did not take any action on the matter. It is also alleged in the complaint petition that on 5.2.2003 both the petitioner came in a Motor-cycle, rebuked the complainant, threatened him. dealt fist blows and took away cash of Rs. 20,000/- from his pocket when he was proceeding on the canal road towards Berhampur town. On these allegations a complaint petition was filed alleging further that the complainant had been to the police and the police called him 4-5 times, but ultimately did not take any action. The said complaint petition filed before the learned Magistrate on 17.2.2003 was registered as ICC No. 2/2003 and subsequently the learned Magistrate forwarded the complaint petition to the OIC. Golanthara PS to treat the same as FIR under Section 156(3). CrPC. and to proceed with the same in accordance with law. On receipt of the said complaint from the Court the Golanthara police treated the same as FIR, registered Golanthara PS case No. 98/ 2003 for the offence under Sections 341, 323, 392 and 506/34 IPC and proceeded with the investigation and on completion of the investigation submitted charge-sheet. Although there was no legal material available/collected during the course of the investigation and the learned Magistrate after receipt of the charge-sheet without application of his judicial mind and without considering the backdrop which resulted in the initiation of the case against the petitioners, took cognizance of the offence it is alleged.</p><p>3. The salient grounds taken by the petitioners in this application' under Section 482, CrPC to quash the order of cognizance are that there exists dispute of civil nature between the parties arising out of the partnership firm. The complainant-opposite party No. 2 since failed in his attempt to rope in petitioner . No. 1 in another criminal case which he had earlier initiated against him, he has come out with the frivolous complaint to wreck vengeance against the petitioners who are father and son and are in no way involved in the alleged offences.</p><p>4. During the hearing of the petition and also on a perusal of the complaint/FIR and the case diary I come to find that the parties had admittedly started a real estate business and it is also admitted fact that there was a partnership deed executed by the parties to the said partnership firm on 1.8.1998 where this petitioner No. l Krushna Chandra Sahu, A. Ranga Rao, the complainant, Rajendra Kumar Sahu, Basudev Panda, Pravakar Sabat and Prafulla Kumar Sahu were the partners. On a scrutiny of the said partnership deed which contains many clauses regarding the function of the firm, share to be contributed, role which be played by each partner have been specifically mentioned in the said deed. In clause 18 there is specific mention that any dispute or difference arising amongst the partners with respect to the construction or interpretation of the deed or any other matter relating to the partnership affairs shall be referred to arbitration under the provisions of Indian Arbitration Act by appointing Arbitrator.</p><p>5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners argued that since undisputedly there is a partnership firm and the entire allegation of the complainant hinges round the said partnership business and when particularly there is a clause in the partnership deed that any dispute between the parties shall be referred to an Arbitrator by appointing one under the Arbitration Act, whose decision shall be final and binding on the parties to which all the partners including the complainant agreed, filing of a complaint petition on flimsy and false allegations against another partner and his son is totally unwarranted.</p><p>6. Taking me into col.6 of the complaint petition of the complainant, learned Counsel for the petitioner pointed out that the alleged occurrence, according to the petitioner, took place on 5.2.2003 which has been mentioned in the said column. But in the said column it is also mentioned that the complainant lodged a report at Golanthara PS regarding the incident on 16.10.2002. He argued vehemently that this is itself is a glaring instance as to how the case is a false and frivolous one initiated to wreck vengeance and when the occurrence itself according to the complainant took place on 5.2.2003, report regarding such occurrence could not have been lodged at the police station on 16.10.2002. Learned counsel also took me through the statements of the other partners of the firm recorded by the I.O. under Section 161, CrPC., who have all stated that the complainant-opposite party No. 2 had dispute relating to the partnership firm with petitioner No. 1 Krushna Chandra Sahu for non-contribution of Rs. l lakh to the firm by complainant-opposite party No. 2. He further took me to the case diary wherein during the investigation of the case the I.O. has categorically mentioned that during the year 2002, due to misunderstanding that prevailed between the parties, the dispute arising out of the partnership firm and the contribution to the same the complainant-opposite party No. 2 reported on 17.10.2002 and 20.1.2003 and petitioner No. 1 Krushna Chandra Sahu had reported on 20.1.2003 and since the allegations related to the partnership firm and both had alleged against each other and no document could be produced to substantiate the allegations the police had made only station diary entries as the dispute was found to be civil nature. Apart from that, the parties became political rivals of each other during the Panchayat and Zilla Parishad elections, although earlier they belonged to one party. Lastly, it was submitted by learned Counsel for the petitioner that the entire episode which has been narrated in the complaint petition is the outcome of the partnership business and if the complainant had any grudge and any doubt regarding misappropriation of partnership fund by the accused petitioner No. l, he could have taken shelter in the appropriate forum by filing civil litigation. Without doing so, he has resorted to criminal prosecution on very flimsy-ground and not only that he has implicated the son of petitioner No. 1 who is an engineering student and prosecuting his study, he submitted.</p><p>7. It is apparent on record that petitioner No. 1 is businessman and it is submitted by learned Counsel for the petitioner that he is an income tax assessee and the allegation that has been brought by the complainant in his complaint petition which was subsequently treated as FIR by order of learned Magistrate is that the petitioners obstructed the complainant on his way while he was proceeding in his motor-cycle, threatened him, dealt pushes and fist blows, criminally intimidated him and took away cash of Rs. 20,000/- from his pocket. On the face of all these earlier disputes between the parties allegations and counter allegations against each other and political rivalry and the other facts that I have discussed in the preceding paragraphs relating to. the report about this incident to the police even before it took place, makes the matter highly suspicious, rather improbable.</p><p>8. Learned Addl. Standing Counsel appearing for the State submitted that enmity being, a double edged weapon and in the instant case when the police has submitted charge-sheet and the learned Magistrate has taken cognizance of the offence basing on the same, the order of cognizance should not be quashed as the truth or otherwise of the matter can be ascertained only after a legitimate trial of the petitioners in the Court of learned Magistrate. Learned counsel for the petitioner, on the other hand, relying on a decision reported in : 1992CriLJ527 (State of Haryana v. Ch. Bhajanlal and Ors.) submitted in the light of the said judgment that in the instant case, the FIR of the complainant, even it is taken on its face value and accepted in its entirety it does not constitute any offence or make out any case against the petitioners. He also submitted that the allegations in the complaint/FIR are so absurd and inherently improbable that on the basis of the same no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion. He vehemently urged that this criminal proceeding even manifestly attended with mala fide and the same is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wrecking vengeance on the accused-petitioners with a view to spite them due to private and personal grudge.</p><p>9. On the admitted factual position and the constant rift between the parties which culminated out of partnership firm and subsequent political rivalry has given rise to this criminal case and the valid object behind this lame prosecution, the very nature of the material on which the structure of the prosecution rests are sufficient for this Court to quash the proceeding in the interest of justice as ends of justice are higher than the ends of mere law though justice has got to be administered according to the laws made by the Legislature. In my view, this is a fit case where the inherent power u/s 482, CrPC should be exercised to quash the proceeding as the entire prosecution case rests on false, frivolous and vexatious allegations and to allow continuance of the proceeding would be sheer misuse of the process of the Court.</p><p>10. In the result, I quash the order of cognizance order dated 19.12.2003 in G.R. Case No. 23 of 2003 pending in the Court of J.M.F.C., Patrapur and so also the criminal proceeding.</p><p>11. The Criminal Misc. Case is accordingly allowed.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '2005(II)OLR793',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'State of Orissa and anr.',
		'sub' => 'Criminal',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'krushna-chandra-sahu-vs-state-orissa'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '535665',
	(int) 1 => 'krushna-chandra-sahu-vs-state-orissa'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/535665/krushna-chandra-sahu-vs-state-orissa'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$caseref = '(State of Haryana v. Ch. Bhajanlal and Ors.<br>'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>A.K. Samantaray, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. In this Criminal Misc. Case under Section 482, Cr.P.C. the petitioners who are father and sort have prayed for quashing of the order of cognizance dated 19.12.2003 in G.R. Case No. 23 of 2003 passed by learned J.M.F.C.. Patrapur (GM). Learned Magistrate took cognizance of the offences under Sections 341, 323, 392, 506/34, IPC on the allegation of opposite party No. 2.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. The prosecution case, as it appears from the complaint petition which was subsequently treated as FIR as per the direction of the learned Magistrate under Section 156(3), CrPC, in short is that the complainant-opposite party No. 2 A. Ranga Rao. petitioner No. 1 Krushna Chandra Sahu, Rajendra Kumar Sahu. Basudev Panda. Pravakar Sabat and Prafulla Kumar Sahu constituted a firm in the name and style of 'Madhupriya Estate'. They also executed a partnership deed on 1.8,1998 and according to the terms of the partnership deed they had to share the capital. It is alleged that petitioner No. 1 Krushna Chandra Sahu did not render any account, income and expenditure of the firm to the complainant-partner A. Ranga Rao, For this act of petitioner No. 1 the relationship between the complainant and the petitioner No. 1 soured. When the complainant insisted for rendering accounts petitioner No. 1 did not give the same and misappropriated the firm's money. It is also alleged that the complainant had reported the matter on 15.10.2002 at Golanthara PS, but the police did not take any action on the matter. It is also alleged in the complaint petition that on 5.2.2003 both the petitioner came in a Motor-cycle, rebuked the complainant, threatened him. dealt fist blows and took away cash of Rs. 20,000/- from his pocket when he was proceeding on the canal road towards Berhampur town. On these allegations a complaint petition was filed alleging further that the complainant had been to the police and the police called him 4-5 times, but ultimately did not take any action. The said complaint petition filed before the learned Magistrate on 17.2.2003 was registered as ICC No. 2/2003 and subsequently the learned Magistrate forwarded the complaint petition to the OIC. Golanthara PS to treat the same as FIR under Section 156(3). CrPC. and to proceed with the same in accordance with law. On receipt of the said complaint from the Court the Golanthara police treated the same as FIR, registered Golanthara PS case No. 98/ 2003 for the offence under Sections 341, 323, 392 and 506/34 IPC and proceeded with the investigation and on completion of the investigation submitted charge-sheet. Although there was no legal material available/collected during the course of the investigation and the learned Magistrate after receipt of the charge-sheet without application of his judicial mind and without considering the backdrop which resulted in the initiation of the case against the petitioners, took cognizance of the offence it is alleged.',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. The salient grounds taken by the petitioners in this application' under Section 482, CrPC to quash the order of cognizance are that there exists dispute of civil nature between the parties arising out of the partnership firm. The complainant-opposite party No. 2 since failed in his attempt to rope in petitioner . No. 1 in another criminal case which he had earlier initiated against him, he has come out with the frivolous complaint to wreck vengeance against the petitioners who are father and son and are in no way involved in the alleged offences.',
	(int) 4 => '<p>4. During the hearing of the petition and also on a perusal of the complaint/FIR and the case diary I come to find that the parties had admittedly started a real estate business and it is also admitted fact that there was a partnership deed executed by the parties to the said partnership firm on 1.8.1998 where this petitioner No. l Krushna Chandra Sahu, A. Ranga Rao, the complainant, Rajendra Kumar Sahu, Basudev Panda, Pravakar Sabat and Prafulla Kumar Sahu were the partners. On a scrutiny of the said partnership deed which contains many clauses regarding the function of the firm, share to be contributed, role which be played by each partner have been specifically mentioned in the said deed. In clause 18 there is specific mention that any dispute or difference arising amongst the partners with respect to the construction or interpretation of the deed or any other matter relating to the partnership affairs shall be referred to arbitration under the provisions of Indian Arbitration Act by appointing Arbitrator.',
	(int) 5 => '<p>5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners argued that since undisputedly there is a partnership firm and the entire allegation of the complainant hinges round the said partnership business and when particularly there is a clause in the partnership deed that any dispute between the parties shall be referred to an Arbitrator by appointing one under the Arbitration Act, whose decision shall be final and binding on the parties to which all the partners including the complainant agreed, filing of a complaint petition on flimsy and false allegations against another partner and his son is totally unwarranted.',
	(int) 6 => '<p>6. Taking me into col.6 of the complaint petition of the complainant, learned Counsel for the petitioner pointed out that the alleged occurrence, according to the petitioner, took place on 5.2.2003 which has been mentioned in the said column. But in the said column it is also mentioned that the complainant lodged a report at Golanthara PS regarding the incident on 16.10.2002. He argued vehemently that this is itself is a glaring instance as to how the case is a false and frivolous one initiated to wreck vengeance and when the occurrence itself according to the complainant took place on 5.2.2003, report regarding such occurrence could not have been lodged at the police station on 16.10.2002. Learned counsel also took me through the statements of the other partners of the firm recorded by the I.O. under Section 161, CrPC., who have all stated that the complainant-opposite party No. 2 had dispute relating to the partnership firm with petitioner No. 1 Krushna Chandra Sahu for non-contribution of Rs. l lakh to the firm by complainant-opposite party No. 2. He further took me to the case diary wherein during the investigation of the case the I.O. has categorically mentioned that during the year 2002, due to misunderstanding that prevailed between the parties, the dispute arising out of the partnership firm and the contribution to the same the complainant-opposite party No. 2 reported on 17.10.2002 and 20.1.2003 and petitioner No. 1 Krushna Chandra Sahu had reported on 20.1.2003 and since the allegations related to the partnership firm and both had alleged against each other and no document could be produced to substantiate the allegations the police had made only station diary entries as the dispute was found to be civil nature. Apart from that, the parties became political rivals of each other during the Panchayat and Zilla Parishad elections, although earlier they belonged to one party. Lastly, it was submitted by learned Counsel for the petitioner that the entire episode which has been narrated in the complaint petition is the outcome of the partnership business and if the complainant had any grudge and any doubt regarding misappropriation of partnership fund by the accused petitioner No. l, he could have taken shelter in the appropriate forum by filing civil litigation. Without doing so, he has resorted to criminal prosecution on very flimsy-ground and not only that he has implicated the son of petitioner No. 1 who is an engineering student and prosecuting his study, he submitted.',
	(int) 7 => '<p>7. It is apparent on record that petitioner No. 1 is businessman and it is submitted by learned Counsel for the petitioner that he is an income tax assessee and the allegation that has been brought by the complainant in his complaint petition which was subsequently treated as FIR by order of learned Magistrate is that the petitioners obstructed the complainant on his way while he was proceeding in his motor-cycle, threatened him, dealt pushes and fist blows, criminally intimidated him and took away cash of Rs. 20,000/- from his pocket. On the face of all these earlier disputes between the parties allegations and counter allegations against each other and political rivalry and the other facts that I have discussed in the preceding paragraphs relating to. the report about this incident to the police even before it took place, makes the matter highly suspicious, rather improbable.',
	(int) 8 => '<p>8. Learned Addl. Standing Counsel appearing for the State submitted that enmity being, a double edged weapon and in the instant case when the police has submitted charge-sheet and the learned Magistrate has taken cognizance of the offence basing on the same, the order of cognizance should not be quashed as the truth or otherwise of the matter can be ascertained only after a legitimate trial of the petitioners in the Court of learned Magistrate. Learned counsel for the petitioner, on the other hand, relying on a decision reported in : 1992CriLJ527 (State of Haryana v. Ch. Bhajanlal and Ors.) submitted in the light of the said judgment that in the instant case, the FIR of the complainant, even it is taken on its face value and accepted in its entirety it does not constitute any offence or make out any case against the petitioners. He also submitted that the allegations in the complaint/FIR are so absurd and inherently improbable that on the basis of the same no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion. He vehemently urged that this criminal proceeding even manifestly attended with mala fide and the same is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wrecking vengeance on the accused-petitioners with a view to spite them due to private and personal grudge.',
	(int) 9 => '<p>9. On the admitted factual position and the constant rift between the parties which culminated out of partnership firm and subsequent political rivalry has given rise to this criminal case and the valid object behind this lame prosecution, the very nature of the material on which the structure of the prosecution rests are sufficient for this Court to quash the proceeding in the interest of justice as ends of justice are higher than the ends of mere law though justice has got to be administered according to the laws made by the Legislature. In my view, this is a fit case where the inherent power u/s 482, CrPC should be exercised to quash the proceeding as the entire prosecution case rests on false, frivolous and vexatious allegations and to allow continuance of the proceeding would be sheer misuse of the process of the Court.',
	(int) 10 => '<p>10. In the result, I quash the order of cognizance order dated 19.12.2003 in G.R. Case No. 23 of 2003 pending in the Court of J.M.F.C., Patrapur and so also the criminal proceeding.',
	(int) 11 => '<p>11. The Criminal Misc. Case is accordingly allowed.<p>',
	(int) 12 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 13
$i = (int) 7
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

7. It is apparent on record that petitioner No. 1 is businessman and it is submitted by learned Counsel for the petitioner that he is an income tax assessee and the allegation that has been brought by the complainant in his complaint petition which was subsequently treated as FIR by order of learned Magistrate is that the petitioners obstructed the complainant on his way while he was proceeding in his motor-cycle, threatened him, dealt pushes and fist blows, criminally intimidated him and took away cash of Rs. 20,000/- from his pocket. On the face of all these earlier disputes between the parties allegations and counter allegations against each other and political rivalry and the other facts that I have discussed in the preceding paragraphs relating to. the report about this incident to the police even before it took place, makes the matter highly suspicious, rather improbable.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Context                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Krushna Chandra Sahu and anr Vs State of Orissa and anr - Citation 535665 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '535665',
			'acts' => 'Arbitration Act; <a href="/act/50902/code-of-criminal-procedure-1973-complete-act">Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1973</a> - Sections 156(3), 161 and 482; Indian Penal Code (IPC) - Sections 34, 323, 341, 392 and 506',
			'appealno' => 'Crl. Misc. Case No. 1814 of 2004',
			'appellant' => 'Krushna Chandra Sahu and anr.',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Krushna Chandra Sahu and anr. Vs. State of Orissa and anr.',
			'casenote' => 'Criminal - Cognizance - Quashing of - Section 156(3) of Code of Criminal Procedure,1973(Cr. PC) and Sections 34, 323, 341, 392 and 506 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) - Respondent and petitioners constituted partnership firm according - Petitioners misappropriated firm's money - Respondent approached police for lodging FIR against petitioners - Police refused to lodged FIR - Respondent filed complaint before Magistrate under Section 156(3) of Cr. P. C. - Magistrate allowed complaint and directed police to lodge FIR - Police officer lodged FIR against petitioners for commission of offence under Sections 341, 323, 392 and 506/34 of IPC and conducted investigation - On completion of investigation, police submitted charge sheet and Magistrate took cognizance of offence against petitioners - Hence, present writ petition filed seeking quashment of cognizance taken - Held, from facts and available material on record it established that respondent falsely implicated petitioners in present case due to dispute arose between them in relation to partnership firm running by them - Sufficient ground exist behind present lame prosecution and sufficient reasons and evidences exist to quash the same - Accordingly, writ petition allowed and order of cognizance quashed  - LABOUR & SERVICES 
Pay Scale:[Tarun Chatterjee & R.M. Lodha,JJ] Fixation - Orissa Service Code (1939), Rule 74(b)  Promotion - Government servant, by virtue of Rule 74(b), gets higher pay than what he was getting immediately before his promotion - Circular Dated 19.3.1983 modifying earlier Circular Dated 18.6.1982 resulting in  reduction of pay of employee on promotion  Held, It is not legal. Statutory Rules cannot be altered or amended by such Executive orders or Circulars or Instructions nor can they replace Statutory Rules.
 -  2 since failed in his attempt to rope in petitioner .No.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '(State of Haryana v. Ch. Bhajanlal and Ors.;',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => ' R.K. Nayak,;P.C. Jena
and;S.P. Dash, Advs.',
			'counseldef' => ' Addl. Standing Counsel for O.P. No. 1 and; R.K. Nanda, Adv. for O.P. No. 2',
			'court' => 'Orissa',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2005-10-07',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => ' A.K. Samantaray, J.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">A.K. Samantaray, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. In this Criminal Misc. Case under Section 482, Cr.P.C. the petitioners who are father and sort have prayed for quashing of the order of cognizance dated 19.12.2003 in G.R. Case No. 23 of 2003 passed by learned J.M.F.C.. Patrapur (GM). Learned Magistrate took cognizance of the offences under Sections 341, 323, 392, 506/34, IPC on the allegation of opposite party No. 2.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The prosecution case, as it appears from the complaint petition which was subsequently treated as FIR as per the direction of the learned Magistrate under Section 156(3), CrPC, in short is that the complainant-opposite party No. 2 A. Ranga Rao. petitioner No. 1 Krushna Chandra Sahu, Rajendra Kumar Sahu. Basudev Panda. Pravakar Sabat and Prafulla Kumar Sahu constituted a firm in the name and style of 'Madhupriya Estate'. They also executed a partnership deed on 1.8,1998 and according to the terms of the partnership deed they had to share the capital. It is alleged that petitioner No. 1 Krushna Chandra Sahu did not render any account, income and expenditure of the firm to the complainant-partner A. Ranga Rao, For this act of petitioner No. 1 the relationship between the complainant and the petitioner No. 1 soured. When the complainant insisted for rendering accounts petitioner No. 1 did not give the same and misappropriated the firm's money. It is also alleged that the complainant had reported the matter on 15.10.2002 at Golanthara PS, but the police did not take any action on the matter. It is also alleged in the complaint petition that on 5.2.2003 both the petitioner came in a Motor-cycle, rebuked the complainant, threatened him. dealt fist blows and took away cash of Rs. 20,000/- from his pocket when he was proceeding on the canal road towards Berhampur town. On these allegations a complaint petition was filed alleging further that the complainant had been to the police and the police called him 4-5 times, but ultimately did not take any action. The said complaint petition filed before the learned Magistrate on 17.2.2003 was registered as ICC No. 2/2003 and subsequently the learned Magistrate forwarded the complaint petition to the OIC. Golanthara PS to treat the same as FIR under Section 156(3). CrPC. and to proceed with the same in accordance with law. On receipt of the said complaint from the Court the Golanthara police treated the same as FIR, registered Golanthara PS case No. 98/ 2003 for the offence under Sections 341, 323, 392 and 506/34 IPC and proceeded with the investigation and on completion of the investigation submitted charge-sheet. Although there was no legal material available/collected during the course of the investigation and the learned Magistrate after receipt of the charge-sheet without application of his judicial mind and without considering the backdrop which resulted in the initiation of the case against the petitioners, took cognizance of the offence it is alleged.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. The salient grounds taken by the petitioners in this application' under Section 482, CrPC to quash the order of cognizance are that there exists dispute of civil nature between the parties arising out of the partnership firm. The complainant-opposite party No. 2 since failed in his attempt to rope in petitioner . No. 1 in another criminal case which he had earlier initiated against him, he has come out with the frivolous complaint to wreck vengeance against the petitioners who are father and son and are in no way involved in the alleged offences.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. During the hearing of the petition and also on a perusal of the complaint/FIR and the case diary I come to find that the parties had admittedly started a real estate business and it is also admitted fact that there was a partnership deed executed by the parties to the said partnership firm on 1.8.1998 where this petitioner No. l Krushna Chandra Sahu, A. Ranga Rao, the complainant, Rajendra Kumar Sahu, Basudev Panda, Pravakar Sabat and Prafulla Kumar Sahu were the partners. On a scrutiny of the said partnership deed which contains many clauses regarding the function of the firm, share to be contributed, role which be played by each partner have been specifically mentioned in the said deed. In clause 18 there is specific mention that any dispute or difference arising amongst the partners with respect to the construction or interpretation of the deed or any other matter relating to the partnership affairs shall be referred to arbitration under the provisions of Indian Arbitration Act by appointing Arbitrator.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners argued that since undisputedly there is a partnership firm and the entire allegation of the complainant hinges round the said partnership business and when particularly there is a clause in the partnership deed that any dispute between the parties shall be referred to an Arbitrator by appointing one under the Arbitration Act, whose decision shall be final and binding on the parties to which all the partners including the complainant agreed, filing of a complaint petition on flimsy and false allegations against another partner and his son is totally unwarranted.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. Taking me into col.6 of the complaint petition of the complainant, learned Counsel for the petitioner pointed out that the alleged occurrence, according to the petitioner, took place on 5.2.2003 which has been mentioned in the said column. But in the said column it is also mentioned that the complainant lodged a report at Golanthara PS regarding the incident on 16.10.2002. He argued vehemently that this is itself is a glaring instance as to how the case is a false and frivolous one initiated to wreck vengeance and when the occurrence itself according to the complainant took place on 5.2.2003, report regarding such occurrence could not have been lodged at the police station on 16.10.2002. Learned counsel also took me through the statements of the other partners of the firm recorded by the I.O. under Section 161, CrPC., who have all stated that the complainant-opposite party No. 2 had dispute relating to the partnership firm with petitioner No. 1 Krushna Chandra Sahu for non-contribution of Rs. l lakh to the firm by complainant-opposite party No. 2. He further took me to the case diary wherein during the investigation of the case the I.O. has categorically mentioned that during the year 2002, due to misunderstanding that prevailed between the parties, the dispute arising out of the partnership firm and the contribution to the same the complainant-opposite party No. 2 reported on 17.10.2002 and 20.1.2003 and petitioner No. 1 Krushna Chandra Sahu had reported on 20.1.2003 and since the allegations related to the partnership firm and both had alleged against each other and no document could be produced to substantiate the allegations the police had made only station diary entries as the dispute was found to be civil nature. Apart from that, the parties became political rivals of each other during the Panchayat and Zilla Parishad elections, although earlier they belonged to one party. Lastly, it was submitted by learned Counsel for the petitioner that the entire episode which has been narrated in the complaint petition is the outcome of the partnership business and if the complainant had any grudge and any doubt regarding misappropriation of partnership fund by the accused petitioner No. l, he could have taken shelter in the appropriate forum by filing civil litigation. Without doing so, he has resorted to criminal prosecution on very flimsy-ground and not only that he has implicated the son of petitioner No. 1 who is an engineering student and prosecuting his study, he submitted.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. It is apparent on record that petitioner No. 1 is businessman and it is submitted by learned Counsel for the petitioner that he is an income tax assessee and the allegation that has been brought by the complainant in his complaint petition which was subsequently treated as FIR by order of learned Magistrate is that the petitioners obstructed the complainant on his way while he was proceeding in his motor-cycle, threatened him, dealt pushes and fist blows, criminally intimidated him and took away cash of Rs. 20,000/- from his pocket. On the face of all these earlier disputes between the parties allegations and counter allegations against each other and political rivalry and the other facts that I have discussed in the preceding paragraphs relating to. the report about this incident to the police even before it took place, makes the matter highly suspicious, rather improbable.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. Learned Addl. Standing Counsel appearing for the State submitted that enmity being, a double edged weapon and in the instant case when the police has submitted charge-sheet and the learned Magistrate has taken cognizance of the offence basing on the same, the order of cognizance should not be quashed as the truth or otherwise of the matter can be ascertained only after a legitimate trial of the petitioners in the Court of learned Magistrate. Learned counsel for the petitioner, on the other hand, relying on a decision reported in : 1992CriLJ527 (State of Haryana v. Ch. Bhajanlal and Ors.) submitted in the light of the said judgment that in the instant case, the FIR of the complainant, even it is taken on its face value and accepted in its entirety it does not constitute any offence or make out any case against the petitioners. He also submitted that the allegations in the complaint/FIR are so absurd and inherently improbable that on the basis of the same no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion. He vehemently urged that this criminal proceeding even manifestly attended with mala fide and the same is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wrecking vengeance on the accused-petitioners with a view to spite them due to private and personal grudge.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. On the admitted factual position and the constant rift between the parties which culminated out of partnership firm and subsequent political rivalry has given rise to this criminal case and the valid object behind this lame prosecution, the very nature of the material on which the structure of the prosecution rests are sufficient for this Court to quash the proceeding in the interest of justice as ends of justice are higher than the ends of mere law though justice has got to be administered according to the laws made by the Legislature. In my view, this is a fit case where the inherent power u/s 482, CrPC should be exercised to quash the proceeding as the entire prosecution case rests on false, frivolous and vexatious allegations and to allow continuance of the proceeding would be sheer misuse of the process of the Court.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. In the result, I quash the order of cognizance order dated 19.12.2003 in G.R. Case No. 23 of 2003 pending in the Court of J.M.F.C., Patrapur and so also the criminal proceeding.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">11. The Criminal Misc. Case is accordingly allowed.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '2005(II)OLR793',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'State of Orissa and anr.',
			'sub' => 'Criminal',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'krushna-chandra-sahu-vs-state-orissa',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '535665',
		(int) 1 => 'krushna-chandra-sahu-vs-state-orissa'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Krushna Chandra Sahu and anr Vs State of Orissa and anr - Citation 535665 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '535665',
		'acts' => 'Arbitration Act; <a href="/act/50902/code-of-criminal-procedure-1973-complete-act">Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1973</a> - Sections 156(3), 161 and 482; Indian Penal Code (IPC) - Sections 34, 323, 341, 392 and 506',
		'appealno' => 'Crl. Misc. Case No. 1814 of 2004',
		'appellant' => 'Krushna Chandra Sahu and anr.',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Krushna Chandra Sahu and anr. Vs. State of Orissa and anr.',
		'casenote' => 'Criminal - Cognizance - Quashing of - Section 156(3) of Code of Criminal Procedure,1973(Cr. PC) and Sections 34, 323, 341, 392 and 506 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) - Respondent and petitioners constituted partnership firm according - Petitioners misappropriated firm's money - Respondent approached police for lodging FIR against petitioners - Police refused to lodged FIR - Respondent filed complaint before Magistrate under Section 156(3) of Cr. P. C. - Magistrate allowed complaint and directed police to lodge FIR - Police officer lodged FIR against petitioners for commission of offence under Sections 341, 323, 392 and 506/34 of IPC and conducted investigation - On completion of investigation, police submitted charge sheet and Magistrate took cognizance of offence against petitioners - Hence, present writ petition filed seeking quashment of cognizance taken - Held, from facts and available material on record it established that respondent falsely implicated petitioners in present case due to dispute arose between them in relation to partnership firm running by them - Sufficient ground exist behind present lame prosecution and sufficient reasons and evidences exist to quash the same - Accordingly, writ petition allowed and order of cognizance quashed  - LABOUR & SERVICES 
Pay Scale:[Tarun Chatterjee & R.M. Lodha,JJ] Fixation - Orissa Service Code (1939), Rule 74(b)  Promotion - Government servant, by virtue of Rule 74(b), gets higher pay than what he was getting immediately before his promotion - Circular Dated 19.3.1983 modifying earlier Circular Dated 18.6.1982 resulting in  reduction of pay of employee on promotion  Held, It is not legal. Statutory Rules cannot be altered or amended by such Executive orders or Circulars or Instructions nor can they replace Statutory Rules.
 -  2 since failed in his attempt to rope in petitioner .No.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '(State of Haryana v. Ch. Bhajanlal and Ors.;',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => ' R.K. Nayak,;P.C. Jena
and;S.P. Dash, Advs.',
		'counseldef' => ' Addl. Standing Counsel for O.P. No. 1 and; R.K. Nanda, Adv. for O.P. No. 2',
		'court' => 'Orissa',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2005-10-07',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => ' A.K. Samantaray, J.',
		'judgement' => '<p>A.K. Samantaray, J.</p><p>1. In this Criminal Misc. Case under Section 482, Cr.P.C. the petitioners who are father and sort have prayed for quashing of the order of cognizance dated 19.12.2003 in G.R. Case No. 23 of 2003 passed by learned J.M.F.C.. Patrapur (GM). Learned Magistrate took cognizance of the offences under Sections 341, 323, 392, 506/34, IPC on the allegation of opposite party No. 2.</p><p>2. The prosecution case, as it appears from the complaint petition which was subsequently treated as FIR as per the direction of the learned Magistrate under Section 156(3), CrPC, in short is that the complainant-opposite party No. 2 A. Ranga Rao. petitioner No. 1 Krushna Chandra Sahu, Rajendra Kumar Sahu. Basudev Panda. Pravakar Sabat and Prafulla Kumar Sahu constituted a firm in the name and style of 'Madhupriya Estate'. They also executed a partnership deed on 1.8,1998 and according to the terms of the partnership deed they had to share the capital. It is alleged that petitioner No. 1 Krushna Chandra Sahu did not render any account, income and expenditure of the firm to the complainant-partner A. Ranga Rao, For this act of petitioner No. 1 the relationship between the complainant and the petitioner No. 1 soured. When the complainant insisted for rendering accounts petitioner No. 1 did not give the same and misappropriated the firm's money. It is also alleged that the complainant had reported the matter on 15.10.2002 at Golanthara PS, but the police did not take any action on the matter. It is also alleged in the complaint petition that on 5.2.2003 both the petitioner came in a Motor-cycle, rebuked the complainant, threatened him. dealt fist blows and took away cash of Rs. 20,000/- from his pocket when he was proceeding on the canal road towards Berhampur town. On these allegations a complaint petition was filed alleging further that the complainant had been to the police and the police called him 4-5 times, but ultimately did not take any action. The said complaint petition filed before the learned Magistrate on 17.2.2003 was registered as ICC No. 2/2003 and subsequently the learned Magistrate forwarded the complaint petition to the OIC. Golanthara PS to treat the same as FIR under Section 156(3). CrPC. and to proceed with the same in accordance with law. On receipt of the said complaint from the Court the Golanthara police treated the same as FIR, registered Golanthara PS case No. 98/ 2003 for the offence under Sections 341, 323, 392 and 506/34 IPC and proceeded with the investigation and on completion of the investigation submitted charge-sheet. Although there was no legal material available/collected during the course of the investigation and the learned Magistrate after receipt of the charge-sheet without application of his judicial mind and without considering the backdrop which resulted in the initiation of the case against the petitioners, took cognizance of the offence it is alleged.</p><p>3. The salient grounds taken by the petitioners in this application' under Section 482, CrPC to quash the order of cognizance are that there exists dispute of civil nature between the parties arising out of the partnership firm. The complainant-opposite party No. 2 since failed in his attempt to rope in petitioner . No. 1 in another criminal case which he had earlier initiated against him, he has come out with the frivolous complaint to wreck vengeance against the petitioners who are father and son and are in no way involved in the alleged offences.</p><p>4. During the hearing of the petition and also on a perusal of the complaint/FIR and the case diary I come to find that the parties had admittedly started a real estate business and it is also admitted fact that there was a partnership deed executed by the parties to the said partnership firm on 1.8.1998 where this petitioner No. l Krushna Chandra Sahu, A. Ranga Rao, the complainant, Rajendra Kumar Sahu, Basudev Panda, Pravakar Sabat and Prafulla Kumar Sahu were the partners. On a scrutiny of the said partnership deed which contains many clauses regarding the function of the firm, share to be contributed, role which be played by each partner have been specifically mentioned in the said deed. In clause 18 there is specific mention that any dispute or difference arising amongst the partners with respect to the construction or interpretation of the deed or any other matter relating to the partnership affairs shall be referred to arbitration under the provisions of Indian Arbitration Act by appointing Arbitrator.</p><p>5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners argued that since undisputedly there is a partnership firm and the entire allegation of the complainant hinges round the said partnership business and when particularly there is a clause in the partnership deed that any dispute between the parties shall be referred to an Arbitrator by appointing one under the Arbitration Act, whose decision shall be final and binding on the parties to which all the partners including the complainant agreed, filing of a complaint petition on flimsy and false allegations against another partner and his son is totally unwarranted.</p><p>6. Taking me into col.6 of the complaint petition of the complainant, learned Counsel for the petitioner pointed out that the alleged occurrence, according to the petitioner, took place on 5.2.2003 which has been mentioned in the said column. But in the said column it is also mentioned that the complainant lodged a report at Golanthara PS regarding the incident on 16.10.2002. He argued vehemently that this is itself is a glaring instance as to how the case is a false and frivolous one initiated to wreck vengeance and when the occurrence itself according to the complainant took place on 5.2.2003, report regarding such occurrence could not have been lodged at the police station on 16.10.2002. Learned counsel also took me through the statements of the other partners of the firm recorded by the I.O. under Section 161, CrPC., who have all stated that the complainant-opposite party No. 2 had dispute relating to the partnership firm with petitioner No. 1 Krushna Chandra Sahu for non-contribution of Rs. l lakh to the firm by complainant-opposite party No. 2. He further took me to the case diary wherein during the investigation of the case the I.O. has categorically mentioned that during the year 2002, due to misunderstanding that prevailed between the parties, the dispute arising out of the partnership firm and the contribution to the same the complainant-opposite party No. 2 reported on 17.10.2002 and 20.1.2003 and petitioner No. 1 Krushna Chandra Sahu had reported on 20.1.2003 and since the allegations related to the partnership firm and both had alleged against each other and no document could be produced to substantiate the allegations the police had made only station diary entries as the dispute was found to be civil nature. Apart from that, the parties became political rivals of each other during the Panchayat and Zilla Parishad elections, although earlier they belonged to one party. Lastly, it was submitted by learned Counsel for the petitioner that the entire episode which has been narrated in the complaint petition is the outcome of the partnership business and if the complainant had any grudge and any doubt regarding misappropriation of partnership fund by the accused petitioner No. l, he could have taken shelter in the appropriate forum by filing civil litigation. Without doing so, he has resorted to criminal prosecution on very flimsy-ground and not only that he has implicated the son of petitioner No. 1 who is an engineering student and prosecuting his study, he submitted.</p><p>7. It is apparent on record that petitioner No. 1 is businessman and it is submitted by learned Counsel for the petitioner that he is an income tax assessee and the allegation that has been brought by the complainant in his complaint petition which was subsequently treated as FIR by order of learned Magistrate is that the petitioners obstructed the complainant on his way while he was proceeding in his motor-cycle, threatened him, dealt pushes and fist blows, criminally intimidated him and took away cash of Rs. 20,000/- from his pocket. On the face of all these earlier disputes between the parties allegations and counter allegations against each other and political rivalry and the other facts that I have discussed in the preceding paragraphs relating to. the report about this incident to the police even before it took place, makes the matter highly suspicious, rather improbable.</p><p>8. Learned Addl. Standing Counsel appearing for the State submitted that enmity being, a double edged weapon and in the instant case when the police has submitted charge-sheet and the learned Magistrate has taken cognizance of the offence basing on the same, the order of cognizance should not be quashed as the truth or otherwise of the matter can be ascertained only after a legitimate trial of the petitioners in the Court of learned Magistrate. Learned counsel for the petitioner, on the other hand, relying on a decision reported in : 1992CriLJ527 (State of Haryana v. Ch. Bhajanlal and Ors.) submitted in the light of the said judgment that in the instant case, the FIR of the complainant, even it is taken on its face value and accepted in its entirety it does not constitute any offence or make out any case against the petitioners. He also submitted that the allegations in the complaint/FIR are so absurd and inherently improbable that on the basis of the same no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion. He vehemently urged that this criminal proceeding even manifestly attended with mala fide and the same is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wrecking vengeance on the accused-petitioners with a view to spite them due to private and personal grudge.</p><p>9. On the admitted factual position and the constant rift between the parties which culminated out of partnership firm and subsequent political rivalry has given rise to this criminal case and the valid object behind this lame prosecution, the very nature of the material on which the structure of the prosecution rests are sufficient for this Court to quash the proceeding in the interest of justice as ends of justice are higher than the ends of mere law though justice has got to be administered according to the laws made by the Legislature. In my view, this is a fit case where the inherent power u/s 482, CrPC should be exercised to quash the proceeding as the entire prosecution case rests on false, frivolous and vexatious allegations and to allow continuance of the proceeding would be sheer misuse of the process of the Court.</p><p>10. In the result, I quash the order of cognizance order dated 19.12.2003 in G.R. Case No. 23 of 2003 pending in the Court of J.M.F.C., Patrapur and so also the criminal proceeding.</p><p>11. The Criminal Misc. Case is accordingly allowed.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '2005(II)OLR793',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'State of Orissa and anr.',
		'sub' => 'Criminal',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'krushna-chandra-sahu-vs-state-orissa'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '535665',
	(int) 1 => 'krushna-chandra-sahu-vs-state-orissa'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/535665/krushna-chandra-sahu-vs-state-orissa'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$caseref = '(State of Haryana v. Ch. Bhajanlal and Ors.<br>'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>A.K. Samantaray, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. In this Criminal Misc. Case under Section 482, Cr.P.C. the petitioners who are father and sort have prayed for quashing of the order of cognizance dated 19.12.2003 in G.R. Case No. 23 of 2003 passed by learned J.M.F.C.. Patrapur (GM). Learned Magistrate took cognizance of the offences under Sections 341, 323, 392, 506/34, IPC on the allegation of opposite party No. 2.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. The prosecution case, as it appears from the complaint petition which was subsequently treated as FIR as per the direction of the learned Magistrate under Section 156(3), CrPC, in short is that the complainant-opposite party No. 2 A. Ranga Rao. petitioner No. 1 Krushna Chandra Sahu, Rajendra Kumar Sahu. Basudev Panda. Pravakar Sabat and Prafulla Kumar Sahu constituted a firm in the name and style of 'Madhupriya Estate'. They also executed a partnership deed on 1.8,1998 and according to the terms of the partnership deed they had to share the capital. It is alleged that petitioner No. 1 Krushna Chandra Sahu did not render any account, income and expenditure of the firm to the complainant-partner A. Ranga Rao, For this act of petitioner No. 1 the relationship between the complainant and the petitioner No. 1 soured. When the complainant insisted for rendering accounts petitioner No. 1 did not give the same and misappropriated the firm's money. It is also alleged that the complainant had reported the matter on 15.10.2002 at Golanthara PS, but the police did not take any action on the matter. It is also alleged in the complaint petition that on 5.2.2003 both the petitioner came in a Motor-cycle, rebuked the complainant, threatened him. dealt fist blows and took away cash of Rs. 20,000/- from his pocket when he was proceeding on the canal road towards Berhampur town. On these allegations a complaint petition was filed alleging further that the complainant had been to the police and the police called him 4-5 times, but ultimately did not take any action. The said complaint petition filed before the learned Magistrate on 17.2.2003 was registered as ICC No. 2/2003 and subsequently the learned Magistrate forwarded the complaint petition to the OIC. Golanthara PS to treat the same as FIR under Section 156(3). CrPC. and to proceed with the same in accordance with law. On receipt of the said complaint from the Court the Golanthara police treated the same as FIR, registered Golanthara PS case No. 98/ 2003 for the offence under Sections 341, 323, 392 and 506/34 IPC and proceeded with the investigation and on completion of the investigation submitted charge-sheet. Although there was no legal material available/collected during the course of the investigation and the learned Magistrate after receipt of the charge-sheet without application of his judicial mind and without considering the backdrop which resulted in the initiation of the case against the petitioners, took cognizance of the offence it is alleged.',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. The salient grounds taken by the petitioners in this application' under Section 482, CrPC to quash the order of cognizance are that there exists dispute of civil nature between the parties arising out of the partnership firm. The complainant-opposite party No. 2 since failed in his attempt to rope in petitioner . No. 1 in another criminal case which he had earlier initiated against him, he has come out with the frivolous complaint to wreck vengeance against the petitioners who are father and son and are in no way involved in the alleged offences.',
	(int) 4 => '<p>4. During the hearing of the petition and also on a perusal of the complaint/FIR and the case diary I come to find that the parties had admittedly started a real estate business and it is also admitted fact that there was a partnership deed executed by the parties to the said partnership firm on 1.8.1998 where this petitioner No. l Krushna Chandra Sahu, A. Ranga Rao, the complainant, Rajendra Kumar Sahu, Basudev Panda, Pravakar Sabat and Prafulla Kumar Sahu were the partners. On a scrutiny of the said partnership deed which contains many clauses regarding the function of the firm, share to be contributed, role which be played by each partner have been specifically mentioned in the said deed. In clause 18 there is specific mention that any dispute or difference arising amongst the partners with respect to the construction or interpretation of the deed or any other matter relating to the partnership affairs shall be referred to arbitration under the provisions of Indian Arbitration Act by appointing Arbitrator.',
	(int) 5 => '<p>5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners argued that since undisputedly there is a partnership firm and the entire allegation of the complainant hinges round the said partnership business and when particularly there is a clause in the partnership deed that any dispute between the parties shall be referred to an Arbitrator by appointing one under the Arbitration Act, whose decision shall be final and binding on the parties to which all the partners including the complainant agreed, filing of a complaint petition on flimsy and false allegations against another partner and his son is totally unwarranted.',
	(int) 6 => '<p>6. Taking me into col.6 of the complaint petition of the complainant, learned Counsel for the petitioner pointed out that the alleged occurrence, according to the petitioner, took place on 5.2.2003 which has been mentioned in the said column. But in the said column it is also mentioned that the complainant lodged a report at Golanthara PS regarding the incident on 16.10.2002. He argued vehemently that this is itself is a glaring instance as to how the case is a false and frivolous one initiated to wreck vengeance and when the occurrence itself according to the complainant took place on 5.2.2003, report regarding such occurrence could not have been lodged at the police station on 16.10.2002. Learned counsel also took me through the statements of the other partners of the firm recorded by the I.O. under Section 161, CrPC., who have all stated that the complainant-opposite party No. 2 had dispute relating to the partnership firm with petitioner No. 1 Krushna Chandra Sahu for non-contribution of Rs. l lakh to the firm by complainant-opposite party No. 2. He further took me to the case diary wherein during the investigation of the case the I.O. has categorically mentioned that during the year 2002, due to misunderstanding that prevailed between the parties, the dispute arising out of the partnership firm and the contribution to the same the complainant-opposite party No. 2 reported on 17.10.2002 and 20.1.2003 and petitioner No. 1 Krushna Chandra Sahu had reported on 20.1.2003 and since the allegations related to the partnership firm and both had alleged against each other and no document could be produced to substantiate the allegations the police had made only station diary entries as the dispute was found to be civil nature. Apart from that, the parties became political rivals of each other during the Panchayat and Zilla Parishad elections, although earlier they belonged to one party. Lastly, it was submitted by learned Counsel for the petitioner that the entire episode which has been narrated in the complaint petition is the outcome of the partnership business and if the complainant had any grudge and any doubt regarding misappropriation of partnership fund by the accused petitioner No. l, he could have taken shelter in the appropriate forum by filing civil litigation. Without doing so, he has resorted to criminal prosecution on very flimsy-ground and not only that he has implicated the son of petitioner No. 1 who is an engineering student and prosecuting his study, he submitted.',
	(int) 7 => '<p>7. It is apparent on record that petitioner No. 1 is businessman and it is submitted by learned Counsel for the petitioner that he is an income tax assessee and the allegation that has been brought by the complainant in his complaint petition which was subsequently treated as FIR by order of learned Magistrate is that the petitioners obstructed the complainant on his way while he was proceeding in his motor-cycle, threatened him, dealt pushes and fist blows, criminally intimidated him and took away cash of Rs. 20,000/- from his pocket. On the face of all these earlier disputes between the parties allegations and counter allegations against each other and political rivalry and the other facts that I have discussed in the preceding paragraphs relating to. the report about this incident to the police even before it took place, makes the matter highly suspicious, rather improbable.',
	(int) 8 => '<p>8. Learned Addl. Standing Counsel appearing for the State submitted that enmity being, a double edged weapon and in the instant case when the police has submitted charge-sheet and the learned Magistrate has taken cognizance of the offence basing on the same, the order of cognizance should not be quashed as the truth or otherwise of the matter can be ascertained only after a legitimate trial of the petitioners in the Court of learned Magistrate. Learned counsel for the petitioner, on the other hand, relying on a decision reported in : 1992CriLJ527 (State of Haryana v. Ch. Bhajanlal and Ors.) submitted in the light of the said judgment that in the instant case, the FIR of the complainant, even it is taken on its face value and accepted in its entirety it does not constitute any offence or make out any case against the petitioners. He also submitted that the allegations in the complaint/FIR are so absurd and inherently improbable that on the basis of the same no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion. He vehemently urged that this criminal proceeding even manifestly attended with mala fide and the same is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wrecking vengeance on the accused-petitioners with a view to spite them due to private and personal grudge.',
	(int) 9 => '<p>9. On the admitted factual position and the constant rift between the parties which culminated out of partnership firm and subsequent political rivalry has given rise to this criminal case and the valid object behind this lame prosecution, the very nature of the material on which the structure of the prosecution rests are sufficient for this Court to quash the proceeding in the interest of justice as ends of justice are higher than the ends of mere law though justice has got to be administered according to the laws made by the Legislature. In my view, this is a fit case where the inherent power u/s 482, CrPC should be exercised to quash the proceeding as the entire prosecution case rests on false, frivolous and vexatious allegations and to allow continuance of the proceeding would be sheer misuse of the process of the Court.',
	(int) 10 => '<p>10. In the result, I quash the order of cognizance order dated 19.12.2003 in G.R. Case No. 23 of 2003 pending in the Court of J.M.F.C., Patrapur and so also the criminal proceeding.',
	(int) 11 => '<p>11. The Criminal Misc. Case is accordingly allowed.<p>',
	(int) 12 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 13
$i = (int) 8
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

8. Learned Addl. Standing Counsel appearing for the State submitted that enmity being, a double edged weapon and in the instant case when the police has submitted charge-sheet and the learned Magistrate has taken cognizance of the offence basing on the same, the order of cognizance should not be quashed as the truth or otherwise of the matter can be ascertained only after a legitimate trial of the petitioners in the Court of learned Magistrate. Learned counsel for the petitioner, on the other hand, relying on a decision reported in : 1992CriLJ527 (State of Haryana v. Ch. Bhajanlal and Ors.) submitted in the light of the said judgment that in the instant case, the FIR of the complainant, even it is taken on its face value and accepted in its entirety it does not constitute any offence or make out any case against the petitioners. He also submitted that the allegations in the complaint/FIR are so absurd and inherently improbable that on the basis of the same no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion. He vehemently urged that this criminal proceeding even manifestly attended with mala fide and the same is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wrecking vengeance on the accused-petitioners with a view to spite them due to private and personal grudge.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Context                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Krushna Chandra Sahu and anr Vs State of Orissa and anr - Citation 535665 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '535665',
			'acts' => 'Arbitration Act; <a href="/act/50902/code-of-criminal-procedure-1973-complete-act">Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1973</a> - Sections 156(3), 161 and 482; Indian Penal Code (IPC) - Sections 34, 323, 341, 392 and 506',
			'appealno' => 'Crl. Misc. Case No. 1814 of 2004',
			'appellant' => 'Krushna Chandra Sahu and anr.',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Krushna Chandra Sahu and anr. Vs. State of Orissa and anr.',
			'casenote' => 'Criminal - Cognizance - Quashing of - Section 156(3) of Code of Criminal Procedure,1973(Cr. PC) and Sections 34, 323, 341, 392 and 506 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) - Respondent and petitioners constituted partnership firm according - Petitioners misappropriated firm's money - Respondent approached police for lodging FIR against petitioners - Police refused to lodged FIR - Respondent filed complaint before Magistrate under Section 156(3) of Cr. P. C. - Magistrate allowed complaint and directed police to lodge FIR - Police officer lodged FIR against petitioners for commission of offence under Sections 341, 323, 392 and 506/34 of IPC and conducted investigation - On completion of investigation, police submitted charge sheet and Magistrate took cognizance of offence against petitioners - Hence, present writ petition filed seeking quashment of cognizance taken - Held, from facts and available material on record it established that respondent falsely implicated petitioners in present case due to dispute arose between them in relation to partnership firm running by them - Sufficient ground exist behind present lame prosecution and sufficient reasons and evidences exist to quash the same - Accordingly, writ petition allowed and order of cognizance quashed  - LABOUR & SERVICES 
Pay Scale:[Tarun Chatterjee & R.M. Lodha,JJ] Fixation - Orissa Service Code (1939), Rule 74(b)  Promotion - Government servant, by virtue of Rule 74(b), gets higher pay than what he was getting immediately before his promotion - Circular Dated 19.3.1983 modifying earlier Circular Dated 18.6.1982 resulting in  reduction of pay of employee on promotion  Held, It is not legal. Statutory Rules cannot be altered or amended by such Executive orders or Circulars or Instructions nor can they replace Statutory Rules.
 -  2 since failed in his attempt to rope in petitioner .No.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '(State of Haryana v. Ch. Bhajanlal and Ors.;',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => ' R.K. Nayak,;P.C. Jena
and;S.P. Dash, Advs.',
			'counseldef' => ' Addl. Standing Counsel for O.P. No. 1 and; R.K. Nanda, Adv. for O.P. No. 2',
			'court' => 'Orissa',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2005-10-07',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => ' A.K. Samantaray, J.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">A.K. Samantaray, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. In this Criminal Misc. Case under Section 482, Cr.P.C. the petitioners who are father and sort have prayed for quashing of the order of cognizance dated 19.12.2003 in G.R. Case No. 23 of 2003 passed by learned J.M.F.C.. Patrapur (GM). Learned Magistrate took cognizance of the offences under Sections 341, 323, 392, 506/34, IPC on the allegation of opposite party No. 2.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The prosecution case, as it appears from the complaint petition which was subsequently treated as FIR as per the direction of the learned Magistrate under Section 156(3), CrPC, in short is that the complainant-opposite party No. 2 A. Ranga Rao. petitioner No. 1 Krushna Chandra Sahu, Rajendra Kumar Sahu. Basudev Panda. Pravakar Sabat and Prafulla Kumar Sahu constituted a firm in the name and style of 'Madhupriya Estate'. They also executed a partnership deed on 1.8,1998 and according to the terms of the partnership deed they had to share the capital. It is alleged that petitioner No. 1 Krushna Chandra Sahu did not render any account, income and expenditure of the firm to the complainant-partner A. Ranga Rao, For this act of petitioner No. 1 the relationship between the complainant and the petitioner No. 1 soured. When the complainant insisted for rendering accounts petitioner No. 1 did not give the same and misappropriated the firm's money. It is also alleged that the complainant had reported the matter on 15.10.2002 at Golanthara PS, but the police did not take any action on the matter. It is also alleged in the complaint petition that on 5.2.2003 both the petitioner came in a Motor-cycle, rebuked the complainant, threatened him. dealt fist blows and took away cash of Rs. 20,000/- from his pocket when he was proceeding on the canal road towards Berhampur town. On these allegations a complaint petition was filed alleging further that the complainant had been to the police and the police called him 4-5 times, but ultimately did not take any action. The said complaint petition filed before the learned Magistrate on 17.2.2003 was registered as ICC No. 2/2003 and subsequently the learned Magistrate forwarded the complaint petition to the OIC. Golanthara PS to treat the same as FIR under Section 156(3). CrPC. and to proceed with the same in accordance with law. On receipt of the said complaint from the Court the Golanthara police treated the same as FIR, registered Golanthara PS case No. 98/ 2003 for the offence under Sections 341, 323, 392 and 506/34 IPC and proceeded with the investigation and on completion of the investigation submitted charge-sheet. Although there was no legal material available/collected during the course of the investigation and the learned Magistrate after receipt of the charge-sheet without application of his judicial mind and without considering the backdrop which resulted in the initiation of the case against the petitioners, took cognizance of the offence it is alleged.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. The salient grounds taken by the petitioners in this application' under Section 482, CrPC to quash the order of cognizance are that there exists dispute of civil nature between the parties arising out of the partnership firm. The complainant-opposite party No. 2 since failed in his attempt to rope in petitioner . No. 1 in another criminal case which he had earlier initiated against him, he has come out with the frivolous complaint to wreck vengeance against the petitioners who are father and son and are in no way involved in the alleged offences.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. During the hearing of the petition and also on a perusal of the complaint/FIR and the case diary I come to find that the parties had admittedly started a real estate business and it is also admitted fact that there was a partnership deed executed by the parties to the said partnership firm on 1.8.1998 where this petitioner No. l Krushna Chandra Sahu, A. Ranga Rao, the complainant, Rajendra Kumar Sahu, Basudev Panda, Pravakar Sabat and Prafulla Kumar Sahu were the partners. On a scrutiny of the said partnership deed which contains many clauses regarding the function of the firm, share to be contributed, role which be played by each partner have been specifically mentioned in the said deed. In clause 18 there is specific mention that any dispute or difference arising amongst the partners with respect to the construction or interpretation of the deed or any other matter relating to the partnership affairs shall be referred to arbitration under the provisions of Indian Arbitration Act by appointing Arbitrator.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners argued that since undisputedly there is a partnership firm and the entire allegation of the complainant hinges round the said partnership business and when particularly there is a clause in the partnership deed that any dispute between the parties shall be referred to an Arbitrator by appointing one under the Arbitration Act, whose decision shall be final and binding on the parties to which all the partners including the complainant agreed, filing of a complaint petition on flimsy and false allegations against another partner and his son is totally unwarranted.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. Taking me into col.6 of the complaint petition of the complainant, learned Counsel for the petitioner pointed out that the alleged occurrence, according to the petitioner, took place on 5.2.2003 which has been mentioned in the said column. But in the said column it is also mentioned that the complainant lodged a report at Golanthara PS regarding the incident on 16.10.2002. He argued vehemently that this is itself is a glaring instance as to how the case is a false and frivolous one initiated to wreck vengeance and when the occurrence itself according to the complainant took place on 5.2.2003, report regarding such occurrence could not have been lodged at the police station on 16.10.2002. Learned counsel also took me through the statements of the other partners of the firm recorded by the I.O. under Section 161, CrPC., who have all stated that the complainant-opposite party No. 2 had dispute relating to the partnership firm with petitioner No. 1 Krushna Chandra Sahu for non-contribution of Rs. l lakh to the firm by complainant-opposite party No. 2. He further took me to the case diary wherein during the investigation of the case the I.O. has categorically mentioned that during the year 2002, due to misunderstanding that prevailed between the parties, the dispute arising out of the partnership firm and the contribution to the same the complainant-opposite party No. 2 reported on 17.10.2002 and 20.1.2003 and petitioner No. 1 Krushna Chandra Sahu had reported on 20.1.2003 and since the allegations related to the partnership firm and both had alleged against each other and no document could be produced to substantiate the allegations the police had made only station diary entries as the dispute was found to be civil nature. Apart from that, the parties became political rivals of each other during the Panchayat and Zilla Parishad elections, although earlier they belonged to one party. Lastly, it was submitted by learned Counsel for the petitioner that the entire episode which has been narrated in the complaint petition is the outcome of the partnership business and if the complainant had any grudge and any doubt regarding misappropriation of partnership fund by the accused petitioner No. l, he could have taken shelter in the appropriate forum by filing civil litigation. Without doing so, he has resorted to criminal prosecution on very flimsy-ground and not only that he has implicated the son of petitioner No. 1 who is an engineering student and prosecuting his study, he submitted.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. It is apparent on record that petitioner No. 1 is businessman and it is submitted by learned Counsel for the petitioner that he is an income tax assessee and the allegation that has been brought by the complainant in his complaint petition which was subsequently treated as FIR by order of learned Magistrate is that the petitioners obstructed the complainant on his way while he was proceeding in his motor-cycle, threatened him, dealt pushes and fist blows, criminally intimidated him and took away cash of Rs. 20,000/- from his pocket. On the face of all these earlier disputes between the parties allegations and counter allegations against each other and political rivalry and the other facts that I have discussed in the preceding paragraphs relating to. the report about this incident to the police even before it took place, makes the matter highly suspicious, rather improbable.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. Learned Addl. Standing Counsel appearing for the State submitted that enmity being, a double edged weapon and in the instant case when the police has submitted charge-sheet and the learned Magistrate has taken cognizance of the offence basing on the same, the order of cognizance should not be quashed as the truth or otherwise of the matter can be ascertained only after a legitimate trial of the petitioners in the Court of learned Magistrate. Learned counsel for the petitioner, on the other hand, relying on a decision reported in : 1992CriLJ527 (State of Haryana v. Ch. Bhajanlal and Ors.) submitted in the light of the said judgment that in the instant case, the FIR of the complainant, even it is taken on its face value and accepted in its entirety it does not constitute any offence or make out any case against the petitioners. He also submitted that the allegations in the complaint/FIR are so absurd and inherently improbable that on the basis of the same no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion. He vehemently urged that this criminal proceeding even manifestly attended with mala fide and the same is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wrecking vengeance on the accused-petitioners with a view to spite them due to private and personal grudge.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. On the admitted factual position and the constant rift between the parties which culminated out of partnership firm and subsequent political rivalry has given rise to this criminal case and the valid object behind this lame prosecution, the very nature of the material on which the structure of the prosecution rests are sufficient for this Court to quash the proceeding in the interest of justice as ends of justice are higher than the ends of mere law though justice has got to be administered according to the laws made by the Legislature. In my view, this is a fit case where the inherent power u/s 482, CrPC should be exercised to quash the proceeding as the entire prosecution case rests on false, frivolous and vexatious allegations and to allow continuance of the proceeding would be sheer misuse of the process of the Court.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. In the result, I quash the order of cognizance order dated 19.12.2003 in G.R. Case No. 23 of 2003 pending in the Court of J.M.F.C., Patrapur and so also the criminal proceeding.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">11. The Criminal Misc. Case is accordingly allowed.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '2005(II)OLR793',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'State of Orissa and anr.',
			'sub' => 'Criminal',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'krushna-chandra-sahu-vs-state-orissa',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '535665',
		(int) 1 => 'krushna-chandra-sahu-vs-state-orissa'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Krushna Chandra Sahu and anr Vs State of Orissa and anr - Citation 535665 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '535665',
		'acts' => 'Arbitration Act; <a href="/act/50902/code-of-criminal-procedure-1973-complete-act">Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1973</a> - Sections 156(3), 161 and 482; Indian Penal Code (IPC) - Sections 34, 323, 341, 392 and 506',
		'appealno' => 'Crl. Misc. Case No. 1814 of 2004',
		'appellant' => 'Krushna Chandra Sahu and anr.',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Krushna Chandra Sahu and anr. Vs. State of Orissa and anr.',
		'casenote' => 'Criminal - Cognizance - Quashing of - Section 156(3) of Code of Criminal Procedure,1973(Cr. PC) and Sections 34, 323, 341, 392 and 506 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) - Respondent and petitioners constituted partnership firm according - Petitioners misappropriated firm's money - Respondent approached police for lodging FIR against petitioners - Police refused to lodged FIR - Respondent filed complaint before Magistrate under Section 156(3) of Cr. P. C. - Magistrate allowed complaint and directed police to lodge FIR - Police officer lodged FIR against petitioners for commission of offence under Sections 341, 323, 392 and 506/34 of IPC and conducted investigation - On completion of investigation, police submitted charge sheet and Magistrate took cognizance of offence against petitioners - Hence, present writ petition filed seeking quashment of cognizance taken - Held, from facts and available material on record it established that respondent falsely implicated petitioners in present case due to dispute arose between them in relation to partnership firm running by them - Sufficient ground exist behind present lame prosecution and sufficient reasons and evidences exist to quash the same - Accordingly, writ petition allowed and order of cognizance quashed  - LABOUR & SERVICES 
Pay Scale:[Tarun Chatterjee & R.M. Lodha,JJ] Fixation - Orissa Service Code (1939), Rule 74(b)  Promotion - Government servant, by virtue of Rule 74(b), gets higher pay than what he was getting immediately before his promotion - Circular Dated 19.3.1983 modifying earlier Circular Dated 18.6.1982 resulting in  reduction of pay of employee on promotion  Held, It is not legal. Statutory Rules cannot be altered or amended by such Executive orders or Circulars or Instructions nor can they replace Statutory Rules.
 -  2 since failed in his attempt to rope in petitioner .No.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '(State of Haryana v. Ch. Bhajanlal and Ors.;',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => ' R.K. Nayak,;P.C. Jena
and;S.P. Dash, Advs.',
		'counseldef' => ' Addl. Standing Counsel for O.P. No. 1 and; R.K. Nanda, Adv. for O.P. No. 2',
		'court' => 'Orissa',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2005-10-07',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => ' A.K. Samantaray, J.',
		'judgement' => '<p>A.K. Samantaray, J.</p><p>1. In this Criminal Misc. Case under Section 482, Cr.P.C. the petitioners who are father and sort have prayed for quashing of the order of cognizance dated 19.12.2003 in G.R. Case No. 23 of 2003 passed by learned J.M.F.C.. Patrapur (GM). Learned Magistrate took cognizance of the offences under Sections 341, 323, 392, 506/34, IPC on the allegation of opposite party No. 2.</p><p>2. The prosecution case, as it appears from the complaint petition which was subsequently treated as FIR as per the direction of the learned Magistrate under Section 156(3), CrPC, in short is that the complainant-opposite party No. 2 A. Ranga Rao. petitioner No. 1 Krushna Chandra Sahu, Rajendra Kumar Sahu. Basudev Panda. Pravakar Sabat and Prafulla Kumar Sahu constituted a firm in the name and style of 'Madhupriya Estate'. They also executed a partnership deed on 1.8,1998 and according to the terms of the partnership deed they had to share the capital. It is alleged that petitioner No. 1 Krushna Chandra Sahu did not render any account, income and expenditure of the firm to the complainant-partner A. Ranga Rao, For this act of petitioner No. 1 the relationship between the complainant and the petitioner No. 1 soured. When the complainant insisted for rendering accounts petitioner No. 1 did not give the same and misappropriated the firm's money. It is also alleged that the complainant had reported the matter on 15.10.2002 at Golanthara PS, but the police did not take any action on the matter. It is also alleged in the complaint petition that on 5.2.2003 both the petitioner came in a Motor-cycle, rebuked the complainant, threatened him. dealt fist blows and took away cash of Rs. 20,000/- from his pocket when he was proceeding on the canal road towards Berhampur town. On these allegations a complaint petition was filed alleging further that the complainant had been to the police and the police called him 4-5 times, but ultimately did not take any action. The said complaint petition filed before the learned Magistrate on 17.2.2003 was registered as ICC No. 2/2003 and subsequently the learned Magistrate forwarded the complaint petition to the OIC. Golanthara PS to treat the same as FIR under Section 156(3). CrPC. and to proceed with the same in accordance with law. On receipt of the said complaint from the Court the Golanthara police treated the same as FIR, registered Golanthara PS case No. 98/ 2003 for the offence under Sections 341, 323, 392 and 506/34 IPC and proceeded with the investigation and on completion of the investigation submitted charge-sheet. Although there was no legal material available/collected during the course of the investigation and the learned Magistrate after receipt of the charge-sheet without application of his judicial mind and without considering the backdrop which resulted in the initiation of the case against the petitioners, took cognizance of the offence it is alleged.</p><p>3. The salient grounds taken by the petitioners in this application' under Section 482, CrPC to quash the order of cognizance are that there exists dispute of civil nature between the parties arising out of the partnership firm. The complainant-opposite party No. 2 since failed in his attempt to rope in petitioner . No. 1 in another criminal case which he had earlier initiated against him, he has come out with the frivolous complaint to wreck vengeance against the petitioners who are father and son and are in no way involved in the alleged offences.</p><p>4. During the hearing of the petition and also on a perusal of the complaint/FIR and the case diary I come to find that the parties had admittedly started a real estate business and it is also admitted fact that there was a partnership deed executed by the parties to the said partnership firm on 1.8.1998 where this petitioner No. l Krushna Chandra Sahu, A. Ranga Rao, the complainant, Rajendra Kumar Sahu, Basudev Panda, Pravakar Sabat and Prafulla Kumar Sahu were the partners. On a scrutiny of the said partnership deed which contains many clauses regarding the function of the firm, share to be contributed, role which be played by each partner have been specifically mentioned in the said deed. In clause 18 there is specific mention that any dispute or difference arising amongst the partners with respect to the construction or interpretation of the deed or any other matter relating to the partnership affairs shall be referred to arbitration under the provisions of Indian Arbitration Act by appointing Arbitrator.</p><p>5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners argued that since undisputedly there is a partnership firm and the entire allegation of the complainant hinges round the said partnership business and when particularly there is a clause in the partnership deed that any dispute between the parties shall be referred to an Arbitrator by appointing one under the Arbitration Act, whose decision shall be final and binding on the parties to which all the partners including the complainant agreed, filing of a complaint petition on flimsy and false allegations against another partner and his son is totally unwarranted.</p><p>6. Taking me into col.6 of the complaint petition of the complainant, learned Counsel for the petitioner pointed out that the alleged occurrence, according to the petitioner, took place on 5.2.2003 which has been mentioned in the said column. But in the said column it is also mentioned that the complainant lodged a report at Golanthara PS regarding the incident on 16.10.2002. He argued vehemently that this is itself is a glaring instance as to how the case is a false and frivolous one initiated to wreck vengeance and when the occurrence itself according to the complainant took place on 5.2.2003, report regarding such occurrence could not have been lodged at the police station on 16.10.2002. Learned counsel also took me through the statements of the other partners of the firm recorded by the I.O. under Section 161, CrPC., who have all stated that the complainant-opposite party No. 2 had dispute relating to the partnership firm with petitioner No. 1 Krushna Chandra Sahu for non-contribution of Rs. l lakh to the firm by complainant-opposite party No. 2. He further took me to the case diary wherein during the investigation of the case the I.O. has categorically mentioned that during the year 2002, due to misunderstanding that prevailed between the parties, the dispute arising out of the partnership firm and the contribution to the same the complainant-opposite party No. 2 reported on 17.10.2002 and 20.1.2003 and petitioner No. 1 Krushna Chandra Sahu had reported on 20.1.2003 and since the allegations related to the partnership firm and both had alleged against each other and no document could be produced to substantiate the allegations the police had made only station diary entries as the dispute was found to be civil nature. Apart from that, the parties became political rivals of each other during the Panchayat and Zilla Parishad elections, although earlier they belonged to one party. Lastly, it was submitted by learned Counsel for the petitioner that the entire episode which has been narrated in the complaint petition is the outcome of the partnership business and if the complainant had any grudge and any doubt regarding misappropriation of partnership fund by the accused petitioner No. l, he could have taken shelter in the appropriate forum by filing civil litigation. Without doing so, he has resorted to criminal prosecution on very flimsy-ground and not only that he has implicated the son of petitioner No. 1 who is an engineering student and prosecuting his study, he submitted.</p><p>7. It is apparent on record that petitioner No. 1 is businessman and it is submitted by learned Counsel for the petitioner that he is an income tax assessee and the allegation that has been brought by the complainant in his complaint petition which was subsequently treated as FIR by order of learned Magistrate is that the petitioners obstructed the complainant on his way while he was proceeding in his motor-cycle, threatened him, dealt pushes and fist blows, criminally intimidated him and took away cash of Rs. 20,000/- from his pocket. On the face of all these earlier disputes between the parties allegations and counter allegations against each other and political rivalry and the other facts that I have discussed in the preceding paragraphs relating to. the report about this incident to the police even before it took place, makes the matter highly suspicious, rather improbable.</p><p>8. Learned Addl. Standing Counsel appearing for the State submitted that enmity being, a double edged weapon and in the instant case when the police has submitted charge-sheet and the learned Magistrate has taken cognizance of the offence basing on the same, the order of cognizance should not be quashed as the truth or otherwise of the matter can be ascertained only after a legitimate trial of the petitioners in the Court of learned Magistrate. Learned counsel for the petitioner, on the other hand, relying on a decision reported in : 1992CriLJ527 (State of Haryana v. Ch. Bhajanlal and Ors.) submitted in the light of the said judgment that in the instant case, the FIR of the complainant, even it is taken on its face value and accepted in its entirety it does not constitute any offence or make out any case against the petitioners. He also submitted that the allegations in the complaint/FIR are so absurd and inherently improbable that on the basis of the same no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion. He vehemently urged that this criminal proceeding even manifestly attended with mala fide and the same is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wrecking vengeance on the accused-petitioners with a view to spite them due to private and personal grudge.</p><p>9. On the admitted factual position and the constant rift between the parties which culminated out of partnership firm and subsequent political rivalry has given rise to this criminal case and the valid object behind this lame prosecution, the very nature of the material on which the structure of the prosecution rests are sufficient for this Court to quash the proceeding in the interest of justice as ends of justice are higher than the ends of mere law though justice has got to be administered according to the laws made by the Legislature. In my view, this is a fit case where the inherent power u/s 482, CrPC should be exercised to quash the proceeding as the entire prosecution case rests on false, frivolous and vexatious allegations and to allow continuance of the proceeding would be sheer misuse of the process of the Court.</p><p>10. In the result, I quash the order of cognizance order dated 19.12.2003 in G.R. Case No. 23 of 2003 pending in the Court of J.M.F.C., Patrapur and so also the criminal proceeding.</p><p>11. The Criminal Misc. Case is accordingly allowed.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '2005(II)OLR793',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'State of Orissa and anr.',
		'sub' => 'Criminal',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'krushna-chandra-sahu-vs-state-orissa'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '535665',
	(int) 1 => 'krushna-chandra-sahu-vs-state-orissa'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/535665/krushna-chandra-sahu-vs-state-orissa'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$caseref = '(State of Haryana v. Ch. Bhajanlal and Ors.<br>'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>A.K. Samantaray, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. In this Criminal Misc. Case under Section 482, Cr.P.C. the petitioners who are father and sort have prayed for quashing of the order of cognizance dated 19.12.2003 in G.R. Case No. 23 of 2003 passed by learned J.M.F.C.. Patrapur (GM). Learned Magistrate took cognizance of the offences under Sections 341, 323, 392, 506/34, IPC on the allegation of opposite party No. 2.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. The prosecution case, as it appears from the complaint petition which was subsequently treated as FIR as per the direction of the learned Magistrate under Section 156(3), CrPC, in short is that the complainant-opposite party No. 2 A. Ranga Rao. petitioner No. 1 Krushna Chandra Sahu, Rajendra Kumar Sahu. Basudev Panda. Pravakar Sabat and Prafulla Kumar Sahu constituted a firm in the name and style of 'Madhupriya Estate'. They also executed a partnership deed on 1.8,1998 and according to the terms of the partnership deed they had to share the capital. It is alleged that petitioner No. 1 Krushna Chandra Sahu did not render any account, income and expenditure of the firm to the complainant-partner A. Ranga Rao, For this act of petitioner No. 1 the relationship between the complainant and the petitioner No. 1 soured. When the complainant insisted for rendering accounts petitioner No. 1 did not give the same and misappropriated the firm's money. It is also alleged that the complainant had reported the matter on 15.10.2002 at Golanthara PS, but the police did not take any action on the matter. It is also alleged in the complaint petition that on 5.2.2003 both the petitioner came in a Motor-cycle, rebuked the complainant, threatened him. dealt fist blows and took away cash of Rs. 20,000/- from his pocket when he was proceeding on the canal road towards Berhampur town. On these allegations a complaint petition was filed alleging further that the complainant had been to the police and the police called him 4-5 times, but ultimately did not take any action. The said complaint petition filed before the learned Magistrate on 17.2.2003 was registered as ICC No. 2/2003 and subsequently the learned Magistrate forwarded the complaint petition to the OIC. Golanthara PS to treat the same as FIR under Section 156(3). CrPC. and to proceed with the same in accordance with law. On receipt of the said complaint from the Court the Golanthara police treated the same as FIR, registered Golanthara PS case No. 98/ 2003 for the offence under Sections 341, 323, 392 and 506/34 IPC and proceeded with the investigation and on completion of the investigation submitted charge-sheet. Although there was no legal material available/collected during the course of the investigation and the learned Magistrate after receipt of the charge-sheet without application of his judicial mind and without considering the backdrop which resulted in the initiation of the case against the petitioners, took cognizance of the offence it is alleged.',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. The salient grounds taken by the petitioners in this application' under Section 482, CrPC to quash the order of cognizance are that there exists dispute of civil nature between the parties arising out of the partnership firm. The complainant-opposite party No. 2 since failed in his attempt to rope in petitioner . No. 1 in another criminal case which he had earlier initiated against him, he has come out with the frivolous complaint to wreck vengeance against the petitioners who are father and son and are in no way involved in the alleged offences.',
	(int) 4 => '<p>4. During the hearing of the petition and also on a perusal of the complaint/FIR and the case diary I come to find that the parties had admittedly started a real estate business and it is also admitted fact that there was a partnership deed executed by the parties to the said partnership firm on 1.8.1998 where this petitioner No. l Krushna Chandra Sahu, A. Ranga Rao, the complainant, Rajendra Kumar Sahu, Basudev Panda, Pravakar Sabat and Prafulla Kumar Sahu were the partners. On a scrutiny of the said partnership deed which contains many clauses regarding the function of the firm, share to be contributed, role which be played by each partner have been specifically mentioned in the said deed. In clause 18 there is specific mention that any dispute or difference arising amongst the partners with respect to the construction or interpretation of the deed or any other matter relating to the partnership affairs shall be referred to arbitration under the provisions of Indian Arbitration Act by appointing Arbitrator.',
	(int) 5 => '<p>5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners argued that since undisputedly there is a partnership firm and the entire allegation of the complainant hinges round the said partnership business and when particularly there is a clause in the partnership deed that any dispute between the parties shall be referred to an Arbitrator by appointing one under the Arbitration Act, whose decision shall be final and binding on the parties to which all the partners including the complainant agreed, filing of a complaint petition on flimsy and false allegations against another partner and his son is totally unwarranted.',
	(int) 6 => '<p>6. Taking me into col.6 of the complaint petition of the complainant, learned Counsel for the petitioner pointed out that the alleged occurrence, according to the petitioner, took place on 5.2.2003 which has been mentioned in the said column. But in the said column it is also mentioned that the complainant lodged a report at Golanthara PS regarding the incident on 16.10.2002. He argued vehemently that this is itself is a glaring instance as to how the case is a false and frivolous one initiated to wreck vengeance and when the occurrence itself according to the complainant took place on 5.2.2003, report regarding such occurrence could not have been lodged at the police station on 16.10.2002. Learned counsel also took me through the statements of the other partners of the firm recorded by the I.O. under Section 161, CrPC., who have all stated that the complainant-opposite party No. 2 had dispute relating to the partnership firm with petitioner No. 1 Krushna Chandra Sahu for non-contribution of Rs. l lakh to the firm by complainant-opposite party No. 2. He further took me to the case diary wherein during the investigation of the case the I.O. has categorically mentioned that during the year 2002, due to misunderstanding that prevailed between the parties, the dispute arising out of the partnership firm and the contribution to the same the complainant-opposite party No. 2 reported on 17.10.2002 and 20.1.2003 and petitioner No. 1 Krushna Chandra Sahu had reported on 20.1.2003 and since the allegations related to the partnership firm and both had alleged against each other and no document could be produced to substantiate the allegations the police had made only station diary entries as the dispute was found to be civil nature. Apart from that, the parties became political rivals of each other during the Panchayat and Zilla Parishad elections, although earlier they belonged to one party. Lastly, it was submitted by learned Counsel for the petitioner that the entire episode which has been narrated in the complaint petition is the outcome of the partnership business and if the complainant had any grudge and any doubt regarding misappropriation of partnership fund by the accused petitioner No. l, he could have taken shelter in the appropriate forum by filing civil litigation. Without doing so, he has resorted to criminal prosecution on very flimsy-ground and not only that he has implicated the son of petitioner No. 1 who is an engineering student and prosecuting his study, he submitted.',
	(int) 7 => '<p>7. It is apparent on record that petitioner No. 1 is businessman and it is submitted by learned Counsel for the petitioner that he is an income tax assessee and the allegation that has been brought by the complainant in his complaint petition which was subsequently treated as FIR by order of learned Magistrate is that the petitioners obstructed the complainant on his way while he was proceeding in his motor-cycle, threatened him, dealt pushes and fist blows, criminally intimidated him and took away cash of Rs. 20,000/- from his pocket. On the face of all these earlier disputes between the parties allegations and counter allegations against each other and political rivalry and the other facts that I have discussed in the preceding paragraphs relating to. the report about this incident to the police even before it took place, makes the matter highly suspicious, rather improbable.',
	(int) 8 => '<p>8. Learned Addl. Standing Counsel appearing for the State submitted that enmity being, a double edged weapon and in the instant case when the police has submitted charge-sheet and the learned Magistrate has taken cognizance of the offence basing on the same, the order of cognizance should not be quashed as the truth or otherwise of the matter can be ascertained only after a legitimate trial of the petitioners in the Court of learned Magistrate. Learned counsel for the petitioner, on the other hand, relying on a decision reported in : 1992CriLJ527 (State of Haryana v. Ch. Bhajanlal and Ors.) submitted in the light of the said judgment that in the instant case, the FIR of the complainant, even it is taken on its face value and accepted in its entirety it does not constitute any offence or make out any case against the petitioners. He also submitted that the allegations in the complaint/FIR are so absurd and inherently improbable that on the basis of the same no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion. He vehemently urged that this criminal proceeding even manifestly attended with mala fide and the same is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wrecking vengeance on the accused-petitioners with a view to spite them due to private and personal grudge.',
	(int) 9 => '<p>9. On the admitted factual position and the constant rift between the parties which culminated out of partnership firm and subsequent political rivalry has given rise to this criminal case and the valid object behind this lame prosecution, the very nature of the material on which the structure of the prosecution rests are sufficient for this Court to quash the proceeding in the interest of justice as ends of justice are higher than the ends of mere law though justice has got to be administered according to the laws made by the Legislature. In my view, this is a fit case where the inherent power u/s 482, CrPC should be exercised to quash the proceeding as the entire prosecution case rests on false, frivolous and vexatious allegations and to allow continuance of the proceeding would be sheer misuse of the process of the Court.',
	(int) 10 => '<p>10. In the result, I quash the order of cognizance order dated 19.12.2003 in G.R. Case No. 23 of 2003 pending in the Court of J.M.F.C., Patrapur and so also the criminal proceeding.',
	(int) 11 => '<p>11. The Criminal Misc. Case is accordingly allowed.<p>',
	(int) 12 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 13
$i = (int) 9
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

9. On the admitted factual position and the constant rift between the parties which culminated out of partnership firm and subsequent political rivalry has given rise to this criminal case and the valid object behind this lame prosecution, the very nature of the material on which the structure of the prosecution rests are sufficient for this Court to quash the proceeding in the interest of justice as ends of justice are higher than the ends of mere law though justice has got to be administered according to the laws made by the Legislature. In my view, this is a fit case where the inherent power u/s 482, CrPC should be exercised to quash the proceeding as the entire prosecution case rests on false, frivolous and vexatious allegations and to allow continuance of the proceeding would be sheer misuse of the process of the Court.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Context                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Krushna Chandra Sahu and anr Vs State of Orissa and anr - Citation 535665 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '535665',
			'acts' => 'Arbitration Act; <a href="/act/50902/code-of-criminal-procedure-1973-complete-act">Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1973</a> - Sections 156(3), 161 and 482; Indian Penal Code (IPC) - Sections 34, 323, 341, 392 and 506',
			'appealno' => 'Crl. Misc. Case No. 1814 of 2004',
			'appellant' => 'Krushna Chandra Sahu and anr.',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Krushna Chandra Sahu and anr. Vs. State of Orissa and anr.',
			'casenote' => 'Criminal - Cognizance - Quashing of - Section 156(3) of Code of Criminal Procedure,1973(Cr. PC) and Sections 34, 323, 341, 392 and 506 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) - Respondent and petitioners constituted partnership firm according - Petitioners misappropriated firm's money - Respondent approached police for lodging FIR against petitioners - Police refused to lodged FIR - Respondent filed complaint before Magistrate under Section 156(3) of Cr. P. C. - Magistrate allowed complaint and directed police to lodge FIR - Police officer lodged FIR against petitioners for commission of offence under Sections 341, 323, 392 and 506/34 of IPC and conducted investigation - On completion of investigation, police submitted charge sheet and Magistrate took cognizance of offence against petitioners - Hence, present writ petition filed seeking quashment of cognizance taken - Held, from facts and available material on record it established that respondent falsely implicated petitioners in present case due to dispute arose between them in relation to partnership firm running by them - Sufficient ground exist behind present lame prosecution and sufficient reasons and evidences exist to quash the same - Accordingly, writ petition allowed and order of cognizance quashed  - LABOUR & SERVICES 
Pay Scale:[Tarun Chatterjee & R.M. Lodha,JJ] Fixation - Orissa Service Code (1939), Rule 74(b)  Promotion - Government servant, by virtue of Rule 74(b), gets higher pay than what he was getting immediately before his promotion - Circular Dated 19.3.1983 modifying earlier Circular Dated 18.6.1982 resulting in  reduction of pay of employee on promotion  Held, It is not legal. Statutory Rules cannot be altered or amended by such Executive orders or Circulars or Instructions nor can they replace Statutory Rules.
 -  2 since failed in his attempt to rope in petitioner .No.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '(State of Haryana v. Ch. Bhajanlal and Ors.;',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => ' R.K. Nayak,;P.C. Jena
and;S.P. Dash, Advs.',
			'counseldef' => ' Addl. Standing Counsel for O.P. No. 1 and; R.K. Nanda, Adv. for O.P. No. 2',
			'court' => 'Orissa',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2005-10-07',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => ' A.K. Samantaray, J.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">A.K. Samantaray, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. In this Criminal Misc. Case under Section 482, Cr.P.C. the petitioners who are father and sort have prayed for quashing of the order of cognizance dated 19.12.2003 in G.R. Case No. 23 of 2003 passed by learned J.M.F.C.. Patrapur (GM). Learned Magistrate took cognizance of the offences under Sections 341, 323, 392, 506/34, IPC on the allegation of opposite party No. 2.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The prosecution case, as it appears from the complaint petition which was subsequently treated as FIR as per the direction of the learned Magistrate under Section 156(3), CrPC, in short is that the complainant-opposite party No. 2 A. Ranga Rao. petitioner No. 1 Krushna Chandra Sahu, Rajendra Kumar Sahu. Basudev Panda. Pravakar Sabat and Prafulla Kumar Sahu constituted a firm in the name and style of 'Madhupriya Estate'. They also executed a partnership deed on 1.8,1998 and according to the terms of the partnership deed they had to share the capital. It is alleged that petitioner No. 1 Krushna Chandra Sahu did not render any account, income and expenditure of the firm to the complainant-partner A. Ranga Rao, For this act of petitioner No. 1 the relationship between the complainant and the petitioner No. 1 soured. When the complainant insisted for rendering accounts petitioner No. 1 did not give the same and misappropriated the firm's money. It is also alleged that the complainant had reported the matter on 15.10.2002 at Golanthara PS, but the police did not take any action on the matter. It is also alleged in the complaint petition that on 5.2.2003 both the petitioner came in a Motor-cycle, rebuked the complainant, threatened him. dealt fist blows and took away cash of Rs. 20,000/- from his pocket when he was proceeding on the canal road towards Berhampur town. On these allegations a complaint petition was filed alleging further that the complainant had been to the police and the police called him 4-5 times, but ultimately did not take any action. The said complaint petition filed before the learned Magistrate on 17.2.2003 was registered as ICC No. 2/2003 and subsequently the learned Magistrate forwarded the complaint petition to the OIC. Golanthara PS to treat the same as FIR under Section 156(3). CrPC. and to proceed with the same in accordance with law. On receipt of the said complaint from the Court the Golanthara police treated the same as FIR, registered Golanthara PS case No. 98/ 2003 for the offence under Sections 341, 323, 392 and 506/34 IPC and proceeded with the investigation and on completion of the investigation submitted charge-sheet. Although there was no legal material available/collected during the course of the investigation and the learned Magistrate after receipt of the charge-sheet without application of his judicial mind and without considering the backdrop which resulted in the initiation of the case against the petitioners, took cognizance of the offence it is alleged.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. The salient grounds taken by the petitioners in this application' under Section 482, CrPC to quash the order of cognizance are that there exists dispute of civil nature between the parties arising out of the partnership firm. The complainant-opposite party No. 2 since failed in his attempt to rope in petitioner . No. 1 in another criminal case which he had earlier initiated against him, he has come out with the frivolous complaint to wreck vengeance against the petitioners who are father and son and are in no way involved in the alleged offences.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. During the hearing of the petition and also on a perusal of the complaint/FIR and the case diary I come to find that the parties had admittedly started a real estate business and it is also admitted fact that there was a partnership deed executed by the parties to the said partnership firm on 1.8.1998 where this petitioner No. l Krushna Chandra Sahu, A. Ranga Rao, the complainant, Rajendra Kumar Sahu, Basudev Panda, Pravakar Sabat and Prafulla Kumar Sahu were the partners. On a scrutiny of the said partnership deed which contains many clauses regarding the function of the firm, share to be contributed, role which be played by each partner have been specifically mentioned in the said deed. In clause 18 there is specific mention that any dispute or difference arising amongst the partners with respect to the construction or interpretation of the deed or any other matter relating to the partnership affairs shall be referred to arbitration under the provisions of Indian Arbitration Act by appointing Arbitrator.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners argued that since undisputedly there is a partnership firm and the entire allegation of the complainant hinges round the said partnership business and when particularly there is a clause in the partnership deed that any dispute between the parties shall be referred to an Arbitrator by appointing one under the Arbitration Act, whose decision shall be final and binding on the parties to which all the partners including the complainant agreed, filing of a complaint petition on flimsy and false allegations against another partner and his son is totally unwarranted.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. Taking me into col.6 of the complaint petition of the complainant, learned Counsel for the petitioner pointed out that the alleged occurrence, according to the petitioner, took place on 5.2.2003 which has been mentioned in the said column. But in the said column it is also mentioned that the complainant lodged a report at Golanthara PS regarding the incident on 16.10.2002. He argued vehemently that this is itself is a glaring instance as to how the case is a false and frivolous one initiated to wreck vengeance and when the occurrence itself according to the complainant took place on 5.2.2003, report regarding such occurrence could not have been lodged at the police station on 16.10.2002. Learned counsel also took me through the statements of the other partners of the firm recorded by the I.O. under Section 161, CrPC., who have all stated that the complainant-opposite party No. 2 had dispute relating to the partnership firm with petitioner No. 1 Krushna Chandra Sahu for non-contribution of Rs. l lakh to the firm by complainant-opposite party No. 2. He further took me to the case diary wherein during the investigation of the case the I.O. has categorically mentioned that during the year 2002, due to misunderstanding that prevailed between the parties, the dispute arising out of the partnership firm and the contribution to the same the complainant-opposite party No. 2 reported on 17.10.2002 and 20.1.2003 and petitioner No. 1 Krushna Chandra Sahu had reported on 20.1.2003 and since the allegations related to the partnership firm and both had alleged against each other and no document could be produced to substantiate the allegations the police had made only station diary entries as the dispute was found to be civil nature. Apart from that, the parties became political rivals of each other during the Panchayat and Zilla Parishad elections, although earlier they belonged to one party. Lastly, it was submitted by learned Counsel for the petitioner that the entire episode which has been narrated in the complaint petition is the outcome of the partnership business and if the complainant had any grudge and any doubt regarding misappropriation of partnership fund by the accused petitioner No. l, he could have taken shelter in the appropriate forum by filing civil litigation. Without doing so, he has resorted to criminal prosecution on very flimsy-ground and not only that he has implicated the son of petitioner No. 1 who is an engineering student and prosecuting his study, he submitted.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. It is apparent on record that petitioner No. 1 is businessman and it is submitted by learned Counsel for the petitioner that he is an income tax assessee and the allegation that has been brought by the complainant in his complaint petition which was subsequently treated as FIR by order of learned Magistrate is that the petitioners obstructed the complainant on his way while he was proceeding in his motor-cycle, threatened him, dealt pushes and fist blows, criminally intimidated him and took away cash of Rs. 20,000/- from his pocket. On the face of all these earlier disputes between the parties allegations and counter allegations against each other and political rivalry and the other facts that I have discussed in the preceding paragraphs relating to. the report about this incident to the police even before it took place, makes the matter highly suspicious, rather improbable.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. Learned Addl. Standing Counsel appearing for the State submitted that enmity being, a double edged weapon and in the instant case when the police has submitted charge-sheet and the learned Magistrate has taken cognizance of the offence basing on the same, the order of cognizance should not be quashed as the truth or otherwise of the matter can be ascertained only after a legitimate trial of the petitioners in the Court of learned Magistrate. Learned counsel for the petitioner, on the other hand, relying on a decision reported in : 1992CriLJ527 (State of Haryana v. Ch. Bhajanlal and Ors.) submitted in the light of the said judgment that in the instant case, the FIR of the complainant, even it is taken on its face value and accepted in its entirety it does not constitute any offence or make out any case against the petitioners. He also submitted that the allegations in the complaint/FIR are so absurd and inherently improbable that on the basis of the same no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion. He vehemently urged that this criminal proceeding even manifestly attended with mala fide and the same is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wrecking vengeance on the accused-petitioners with a view to spite them due to private and personal grudge.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. On the admitted factual position and the constant rift between the parties which culminated out of partnership firm and subsequent political rivalry has given rise to this criminal case and the valid object behind this lame prosecution, the very nature of the material on which the structure of the prosecution rests are sufficient for this Court to quash the proceeding in the interest of justice as ends of justice are higher than the ends of mere law though justice has got to be administered according to the laws made by the Legislature. In my view, this is a fit case where the inherent power u/s 482, CrPC should be exercised to quash the proceeding as the entire prosecution case rests on false, frivolous and vexatious allegations and to allow continuance of the proceeding would be sheer misuse of the process of the Court.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. In the result, I quash the order of cognizance order dated 19.12.2003 in G.R. Case No. 23 of 2003 pending in the Court of J.M.F.C., Patrapur and so also the criminal proceeding.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">11. The Criminal Misc. Case is accordingly allowed.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '2005(II)OLR793',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'State of Orissa and anr.',
			'sub' => 'Criminal',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'krushna-chandra-sahu-vs-state-orissa',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '535665',
		(int) 1 => 'krushna-chandra-sahu-vs-state-orissa'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Krushna Chandra Sahu and anr Vs State of Orissa and anr - Citation 535665 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '535665',
		'acts' => 'Arbitration Act; <a href="/act/50902/code-of-criminal-procedure-1973-complete-act">Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1973</a> - Sections 156(3), 161 and 482; Indian Penal Code (IPC) - Sections 34, 323, 341, 392 and 506',
		'appealno' => 'Crl. Misc. Case No. 1814 of 2004',
		'appellant' => 'Krushna Chandra Sahu and anr.',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Krushna Chandra Sahu and anr. Vs. State of Orissa and anr.',
		'casenote' => 'Criminal - Cognizance - Quashing of - Section 156(3) of Code of Criminal Procedure,1973(Cr. PC) and Sections 34, 323, 341, 392 and 506 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) - Respondent and petitioners constituted partnership firm according - Petitioners misappropriated firm's money - Respondent approached police for lodging FIR against petitioners - Police refused to lodged FIR - Respondent filed complaint before Magistrate under Section 156(3) of Cr. P. C. - Magistrate allowed complaint and directed police to lodge FIR - Police officer lodged FIR against petitioners for commission of offence under Sections 341, 323, 392 and 506/34 of IPC and conducted investigation - On completion of investigation, police submitted charge sheet and Magistrate took cognizance of offence against petitioners - Hence, present writ petition filed seeking quashment of cognizance taken - Held, from facts and available material on record it established that respondent falsely implicated petitioners in present case due to dispute arose between them in relation to partnership firm running by them - Sufficient ground exist behind present lame prosecution and sufficient reasons and evidences exist to quash the same - Accordingly, writ petition allowed and order of cognizance quashed  - LABOUR & SERVICES 
Pay Scale:[Tarun Chatterjee & R.M. Lodha,JJ] Fixation - Orissa Service Code (1939), Rule 74(b)  Promotion - Government servant, by virtue of Rule 74(b), gets higher pay than what he was getting immediately before his promotion - Circular Dated 19.3.1983 modifying earlier Circular Dated 18.6.1982 resulting in  reduction of pay of employee on promotion  Held, It is not legal. Statutory Rules cannot be altered or amended by such Executive orders or Circulars or Instructions nor can they replace Statutory Rules.
 -  2 since failed in his attempt to rope in petitioner .No.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '(State of Haryana v. Ch. Bhajanlal and Ors.;',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => ' R.K. Nayak,;P.C. Jena
and;S.P. Dash, Advs.',
		'counseldef' => ' Addl. Standing Counsel for O.P. No. 1 and; R.K. Nanda, Adv. for O.P. No. 2',
		'court' => 'Orissa',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2005-10-07',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => ' A.K. Samantaray, J.',
		'judgement' => '<p>A.K. Samantaray, J.</p><p>1. In this Criminal Misc. Case under Section 482, Cr.P.C. the petitioners who are father and sort have prayed for quashing of the order of cognizance dated 19.12.2003 in G.R. Case No. 23 of 2003 passed by learned J.M.F.C.. Patrapur (GM). Learned Magistrate took cognizance of the offences under Sections 341, 323, 392, 506/34, IPC on the allegation of opposite party No. 2.</p><p>2. The prosecution case, as it appears from the complaint petition which was subsequently treated as FIR as per the direction of the learned Magistrate under Section 156(3), CrPC, in short is that the complainant-opposite party No. 2 A. Ranga Rao. petitioner No. 1 Krushna Chandra Sahu, Rajendra Kumar Sahu. Basudev Panda. Pravakar Sabat and Prafulla Kumar Sahu constituted a firm in the name and style of 'Madhupriya Estate'. They also executed a partnership deed on 1.8,1998 and according to the terms of the partnership deed they had to share the capital. It is alleged that petitioner No. 1 Krushna Chandra Sahu did not render any account, income and expenditure of the firm to the complainant-partner A. Ranga Rao, For this act of petitioner No. 1 the relationship between the complainant and the petitioner No. 1 soured. When the complainant insisted for rendering accounts petitioner No. 1 did not give the same and misappropriated the firm's money. It is also alleged that the complainant had reported the matter on 15.10.2002 at Golanthara PS, but the police did not take any action on the matter. It is also alleged in the complaint petition that on 5.2.2003 both the petitioner came in a Motor-cycle, rebuked the complainant, threatened him. dealt fist blows and took away cash of Rs. 20,000/- from his pocket when he was proceeding on the canal road towards Berhampur town. On these allegations a complaint petition was filed alleging further that the complainant had been to the police and the police called him 4-5 times, but ultimately did not take any action. The said complaint petition filed before the learned Magistrate on 17.2.2003 was registered as ICC No. 2/2003 and subsequently the learned Magistrate forwarded the complaint petition to the OIC. Golanthara PS to treat the same as FIR under Section 156(3). CrPC. and to proceed with the same in accordance with law. On receipt of the said complaint from the Court the Golanthara police treated the same as FIR, registered Golanthara PS case No. 98/ 2003 for the offence under Sections 341, 323, 392 and 506/34 IPC and proceeded with the investigation and on completion of the investigation submitted charge-sheet. Although there was no legal material available/collected during the course of the investigation and the learned Magistrate after receipt of the charge-sheet without application of his judicial mind and without considering the backdrop which resulted in the initiation of the case against the petitioners, took cognizance of the offence it is alleged.</p><p>3. The salient grounds taken by the petitioners in this application' under Section 482, CrPC to quash the order of cognizance are that there exists dispute of civil nature between the parties arising out of the partnership firm. The complainant-opposite party No. 2 since failed in his attempt to rope in petitioner . No. 1 in another criminal case which he had earlier initiated against him, he has come out with the frivolous complaint to wreck vengeance against the petitioners who are father and son and are in no way involved in the alleged offences.</p><p>4. During the hearing of the petition and also on a perusal of the complaint/FIR and the case diary I come to find that the parties had admittedly started a real estate business and it is also admitted fact that there was a partnership deed executed by the parties to the said partnership firm on 1.8.1998 where this petitioner No. l Krushna Chandra Sahu, A. Ranga Rao, the complainant, Rajendra Kumar Sahu, Basudev Panda, Pravakar Sabat and Prafulla Kumar Sahu were the partners. On a scrutiny of the said partnership deed which contains many clauses regarding the function of the firm, share to be contributed, role which be played by each partner have been specifically mentioned in the said deed. In clause 18 there is specific mention that any dispute or difference arising amongst the partners with respect to the construction or interpretation of the deed or any other matter relating to the partnership affairs shall be referred to arbitration under the provisions of Indian Arbitration Act by appointing Arbitrator.</p><p>5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners argued that since undisputedly there is a partnership firm and the entire allegation of the complainant hinges round the said partnership business and when particularly there is a clause in the partnership deed that any dispute between the parties shall be referred to an Arbitrator by appointing one under the Arbitration Act, whose decision shall be final and binding on the parties to which all the partners including the complainant agreed, filing of a complaint petition on flimsy and false allegations against another partner and his son is totally unwarranted.</p><p>6. Taking me into col.6 of the complaint petition of the complainant, learned Counsel for the petitioner pointed out that the alleged occurrence, according to the petitioner, took place on 5.2.2003 which has been mentioned in the said column. But in the said column it is also mentioned that the complainant lodged a report at Golanthara PS regarding the incident on 16.10.2002. He argued vehemently that this is itself is a glaring instance as to how the case is a false and frivolous one initiated to wreck vengeance and when the occurrence itself according to the complainant took place on 5.2.2003, report regarding such occurrence could not have been lodged at the police station on 16.10.2002. Learned counsel also took me through the statements of the other partners of the firm recorded by the I.O. under Section 161, CrPC., who have all stated that the complainant-opposite party No. 2 had dispute relating to the partnership firm with petitioner No. 1 Krushna Chandra Sahu for non-contribution of Rs. l lakh to the firm by complainant-opposite party No. 2. He further took me to the case diary wherein during the investigation of the case the I.O. has categorically mentioned that during the year 2002, due to misunderstanding that prevailed between the parties, the dispute arising out of the partnership firm and the contribution to the same the complainant-opposite party No. 2 reported on 17.10.2002 and 20.1.2003 and petitioner No. 1 Krushna Chandra Sahu had reported on 20.1.2003 and since the allegations related to the partnership firm and both had alleged against each other and no document could be produced to substantiate the allegations the police had made only station diary entries as the dispute was found to be civil nature. Apart from that, the parties became political rivals of each other during the Panchayat and Zilla Parishad elections, although earlier they belonged to one party. Lastly, it was submitted by learned Counsel for the petitioner that the entire episode which has been narrated in the complaint petition is the outcome of the partnership business and if the complainant had any grudge and any doubt regarding misappropriation of partnership fund by the accused petitioner No. l, he could have taken shelter in the appropriate forum by filing civil litigation. Without doing so, he has resorted to criminal prosecution on very flimsy-ground and not only that he has implicated the son of petitioner No. 1 who is an engineering student and prosecuting his study, he submitted.</p><p>7. It is apparent on record that petitioner No. 1 is businessman and it is submitted by learned Counsel for the petitioner that he is an income tax assessee and the allegation that has been brought by the complainant in his complaint petition which was subsequently treated as FIR by order of learned Magistrate is that the petitioners obstructed the complainant on his way while he was proceeding in his motor-cycle, threatened him, dealt pushes and fist blows, criminally intimidated him and took away cash of Rs. 20,000/- from his pocket. On the face of all these earlier disputes between the parties allegations and counter allegations against each other and political rivalry and the other facts that I have discussed in the preceding paragraphs relating to. the report about this incident to the police even before it took place, makes the matter highly suspicious, rather improbable.</p><p>8. Learned Addl. Standing Counsel appearing for the State submitted that enmity being, a double edged weapon and in the instant case when the police has submitted charge-sheet and the learned Magistrate has taken cognizance of the offence basing on the same, the order of cognizance should not be quashed as the truth or otherwise of the matter can be ascertained only after a legitimate trial of the petitioners in the Court of learned Magistrate. Learned counsel for the petitioner, on the other hand, relying on a decision reported in : 1992CriLJ527 (State of Haryana v. Ch. Bhajanlal and Ors.) submitted in the light of the said judgment that in the instant case, the FIR of the complainant, even it is taken on its face value and accepted in its entirety it does not constitute any offence or make out any case against the petitioners. He also submitted that the allegations in the complaint/FIR are so absurd and inherently improbable that on the basis of the same no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion. He vehemently urged that this criminal proceeding even manifestly attended with mala fide and the same is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wrecking vengeance on the accused-petitioners with a view to spite them due to private and personal grudge.</p><p>9. On the admitted factual position and the constant rift between the parties which culminated out of partnership firm and subsequent political rivalry has given rise to this criminal case and the valid object behind this lame prosecution, the very nature of the material on which the structure of the prosecution rests are sufficient for this Court to quash the proceeding in the interest of justice as ends of justice are higher than the ends of mere law though justice has got to be administered according to the laws made by the Legislature. In my view, this is a fit case where the inherent power u/s 482, CrPC should be exercised to quash the proceeding as the entire prosecution case rests on false, frivolous and vexatious allegations and to allow continuance of the proceeding would be sheer misuse of the process of the Court.</p><p>10. In the result, I quash the order of cognizance order dated 19.12.2003 in G.R. Case No. 23 of 2003 pending in the Court of J.M.F.C., Patrapur and so also the criminal proceeding.</p><p>11. The Criminal Misc. Case is accordingly allowed.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '2005(II)OLR793',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'State of Orissa and anr.',
		'sub' => 'Criminal',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'krushna-chandra-sahu-vs-state-orissa'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '535665',
	(int) 1 => 'krushna-chandra-sahu-vs-state-orissa'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/535665/krushna-chandra-sahu-vs-state-orissa'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$caseref = '(State of Haryana v. Ch. Bhajanlal and Ors.<br>'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>A.K. Samantaray, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. In this Criminal Misc. Case under Section 482, Cr.P.C. the petitioners who are father and sort have prayed for quashing of the order of cognizance dated 19.12.2003 in G.R. Case No. 23 of 2003 passed by learned J.M.F.C.. Patrapur (GM). Learned Magistrate took cognizance of the offences under Sections 341, 323, 392, 506/34, IPC on the allegation of opposite party No. 2.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. The prosecution case, as it appears from the complaint petition which was subsequently treated as FIR as per the direction of the learned Magistrate under Section 156(3), CrPC, in short is that the complainant-opposite party No. 2 A. Ranga Rao. petitioner No. 1 Krushna Chandra Sahu, Rajendra Kumar Sahu. Basudev Panda. Pravakar Sabat and Prafulla Kumar Sahu constituted a firm in the name and style of 'Madhupriya Estate'. They also executed a partnership deed on 1.8,1998 and according to the terms of the partnership deed they had to share the capital. It is alleged that petitioner No. 1 Krushna Chandra Sahu did not render any account, income and expenditure of the firm to the complainant-partner A. Ranga Rao, For this act of petitioner No. 1 the relationship between the complainant and the petitioner No. 1 soured. When the complainant insisted for rendering accounts petitioner No. 1 did not give the same and misappropriated the firm's money. It is also alleged that the complainant had reported the matter on 15.10.2002 at Golanthara PS, but the police did not take any action on the matter. It is also alleged in the complaint petition that on 5.2.2003 both the petitioner came in a Motor-cycle, rebuked the complainant, threatened him. dealt fist blows and took away cash of Rs. 20,000/- from his pocket when he was proceeding on the canal road towards Berhampur town. On these allegations a complaint petition was filed alleging further that the complainant had been to the police and the police called him 4-5 times, but ultimately did not take any action. The said complaint petition filed before the learned Magistrate on 17.2.2003 was registered as ICC No. 2/2003 and subsequently the learned Magistrate forwarded the complaint petition to the OIC. Golanthara PS to treat the same as FIR under Section 156(3). CrPC. and to proceed with the same in accordance with law. On receipt of the said complaint from the Court the Golanthara police treated the same as FIR, registered Golanthara PS case No. 98/ 2003 for the offence under Sections 341, 323, 392 and 506/34 IPC and proceeded with the investigation and on completion of the investigation submitted charge-sheet. Although there was no legal material available/collected during the course of the investigation and the learned Magistrate after receipt of the charge-sheet without application of his judicial mind and without considering the backdrop which resulted in the initiation of the case against the petitioners, took cognizance of the offence it is alleged.',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. The salient grounds taken by the petitioners in this application' under Section 482, CrPC to quash the order of cognizance are that there exists dispute of civil nature between the parties arising out of the partnership firm. The complainant-opposite party No. 2 since failed in his attempt to rope in petitioner . No. 1 in another criminal case which he had earlier initiated against him, he has come out with the frivolous complaint to wreck vengeance against the petitioners who are father and son and are in no way involved in the alleged offences.',
	(int) 4 => '<p>4. During the hearing of the petition and also on a perusal of the complaint/FIR and the case diary I come to find that the parties had admittedly started a real estate business and it is also admitted fact that there was a partnership deed executed by the parties to the said partnership firm on 1.8.1998 where this petitioner No. l Krushna Chandra Sahu, A. Ranga Rao, the complainant, Rajendra Kumar Sahu, Basudev Panda, Pravakar Sabat and Prafulla Kumar Sahu were the partners. On a scrutiny of the said partnership deed which contains many clauses regarding the function of the firm, share to be contributed, role which be played by each partner have been specifically mentioned in the said deed. In clause 18 there is specific mention that any dispute or difference arising amongst the partners with respect to the construction or interpretation of the deed or any other matter relating to the partnership affairs shall be referred to arbitration under the provisions of Indian Arbitration Act by appointing Arbitrator.',
	(int) 5 => '<p>5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners argued that since undisputedly there is a partnership firm and the entire allegation of the complainant hinges round the said partnership business and when particularly there is a clause in the partnership deed that any dispute between the parties shall be referred to an Arbitrator by appointing one under the Arbitration Act, whose decision shall be final and binding on the parties to which all the partners including the complainant agreed, filing of a complaint petition on flimsy and false allegations against another partner and his son is totally unwarranted.',
	(int) 6 => '<p>6. Taking me into col.6 of the complaint petition of the complainant, learned Counsel for the petitioner pointed out that the alleged occurrence, according to the petitioner, took place on 5.2.2003 which has been mentioned in the said column. But in the said column it is also mentioned that the complainant lodged a report at Golanthara PS regarding the incident on 16.10.2002. He argued vehemently that this is itself is a glaring instance as to how the case is a false and frivolous one initiated to wreck vengeance and when the occurrence itself according to the complainant took place on 5.2.2003, report regarding such occurrence could not have been lodged at the police station on 16.10.2002. Learned counsel also took me through the statements of the other partners of the firm recorded by the I.O. under Section 161, CrPC., who have all stated that the complainant-opposite party No. 2 had dispute relating to the partnership firm with petitioner No. 1 Krushna Chandra Sahu for non-contribution of Rs. l lakh to the firm by complainant-opposite party No. 2. He further took me to the case diary wherein during the investigation of the case the I.O. has categorically mentioned that during the year 2002, due to misunderstanding that prevailed between the parties, the dispute arising out of the partnership firm and the contribution to the same the complainant-opposite party No. 2 reported on 17.10.2002 and 20.1.2003 and petitioner No. 1 Krushna Chandra Sahu had reported on 20.1.2003 and since the allegations related to the partnership firm and both had alleged against each other and no document could be produced to substantiate the allegations the police had made only station diary entries as the dispute was found to be civil nature. Apart from that, the parties became political rivals of each other during the Panchayat and Zilla Parishad elections, although earlier they belonged to one party. Lastly, it was submitted by learned Counsel for the petitioner that the entire episode which has been narrated in the complaint petition is the outcome of the partnership business and if the complainant had any grudge and any doubt regarding misappropriation of partnership fund by the accused petitioner No. l, he could have taken shelter in the appropriate forum by filing civil litigation. Without doing so, he has resorted to criminal prosecution on very flimsy-ground and not only that he has implicated the son of petitioner No. 1 who is an engineering student and prosecuting his study, he submitted.',
	(int) 7 => '<p>7. It is apparent on record that petitioner No. 1 is businessman and it is submitted by learned Counsel for the petitioner that he is an income tax assessee and the allegation that has been brought by the complainant in his complaint petition which was subsequently treated as FIR by order of learned Magistrate is that the petitioners obstructed the complainant on his way while he was proceeding in his motor-cycle, threatened him, dealt pushes and fist blows, criminally intimidated him and took away cash of Rs. 20,000/- from his pocket. On the face of all these earlier disputes between the parties allegations and counter allegations against each other and political rivalry and the other facts that I have discussed in the preceding paragraphs relating to. the report about this incident to the police even before it took place, makes the matter highly suspicious, rather improbable.',
	(int) 8 => '<p>8. Learned Addl. Standing Counsel appearing for the State submitted that enmity being, a double edged weapon and in the instant case when the police has submitted charge-sheet and the learned Magistrate has taken cognizance of the offence basing on the same, the order of cognizance should not be quashed as the truth or otherwise of the matter can be ascertained only after a legitimate trial of the petitioners in the Court of learned Magistrate. Learned counsel for the petitioner, on the other hand, relying on a decision reported in : 1992CriLJ527 (State of Haryana v. Ch. Bhajanlal and Ors.) submitted in the light of the said judgment that in the instant case, the FIR of the complainant, even it is taken on its face value and accepted in its entirety it does not constitute any offence or make out any case against the petitioners. He also submitted that the allegations in the complaint/FIR are so absurd and inherently improbable that on the basis of the same no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion. He vehemently urged that this criminal proceeding even manifestly attended with mala fide and the same is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wrecking vengeance on the accused-petitioners with a view to spite them due to private and personal grudge.',
	(int) 9 => '<p>9. On the admitted factual position and the constant rift between the parties which culminated out of partnership firm and subsequent political rivalry has given rise to this criminal case and the valid object behind this lame prosecution, the very nature of the material on which the structure of the prosecution rests are sufficient for this Court to quash the proceeding in the interest of justice as ends of justice are higher than the ends of mere law though justice has got to be administered according to the laws made by the Legislature. In my view, this is a fit case where the inherent power u/s 482, CrPC should be exercised to quash the proceeding as the entire prosecution case rests on false, frivolous and vexatious allegations and to allow continuance of the proceeding would be sheer misuse of the process of the Court.',
	(int) 10 => '<p>10. In the result, I quash the order of cognizance order dated 19.12.2003 in G.R. Case No. 23 of 2003 pending in the Court of J.M.F.C., Patrapur and so also the criminal proceeding.',
	(int) 11 => '<p>11. The Criminal Misc. Case is accordingly allowed.<p>',
	(int) 12 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 13
$i = (int) 10
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

10. In the result, I quash the order of cognizance order dated 19.12.2003 in G.R. Case No. 23 of 2003 pending in the Court of J.M.F.C., Patrapur and so also the criminal proceeding.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Context                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Krushna Chandra Sahu and anr Vs State of Orissa and anr - Citation 535665 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '535665',
			'acts' => 'Arbitration Act; <a href="/act/50902/code-of-criminal-procedure-1973-complete-act">Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1973</a> - Sections 156(3), 161 and 482; Indian Penal Code (IPC) - Sections 34, 323, 341, 392 and 506',
			'appealno' => 'Crl. Misc. Case No. 1814 of 2004',
			'appellant' => 'Krushna Chandra Sahu and anr.',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Krushna Chandra Sahu and anr. Vs. State of Orissa and anr.',
			'casenote' => 'Criminal - Cognizance - Quashing of - Section 156(3) of Code of Criminal Procedure,1973(Cr. PC) and Sections 34, 323, 341, 392 and 506 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) - Respondent and petitioners constituted partnership firm according - Petitioners misappropriated firm's money - Respondent approached police for lodging FIR against petitioners - Police refused to lodged FIR - Respondent filed complaint before Magistrate under Section 156(3) of Cr. P. C. - Magistrate allowed complaint and directed police to lodge FIR - Police officer lodged FIR against petitioners for commission of offence under Sections 341, 323, 392 and 506/34 of IPC and conducted investigation - On completion of investigation, police submitted charge sheet and Magistrate took cognizance of offence against petitioners - Hence, present writ petition filed seeking quashment of cognizance taken - Held, from facts and available material on record it established that respondent falsely implicated petitioners in present case due to dispute arose between them in relation to partnership firm running by them - Sufficient ground exist behind present lame prosecution and sufficient reasons and evidences exist to quash the same - Accordingly, writ petition allowed and order of cognizance quashed  - LABOUR & SERVICES 
Pay Scale:[Tarun Chatterjee & R.M. Lodha,JJ] Fixation - Orissa Service Code (1939), Rule 74(b)  Promotion - Government servant, by virtue of Rule 74(b), gets higher pay than what he was getting immediately before his promotion - Circular Dated 19.3.1983 modifying earlier Circular Dated 18.6.1982 resulting in  reduction of pay of employee on promotion  Held, It is not legal. Statutory Rules cannot be altered or amended by such Executive orders or Circulars or Instructions nor can they replace Statutory Rules.
 -  2 since failed in his attempt to rope in petitioner .No.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '(State of Haryana v. Ch. Bhajanlal and Ors.;',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => ' R.K. Nayak,;P.C. Jena
and;S.P. Dash, Advs.',
			'counseldef' => ' Addl. Standing Counsel for O.P. No. 1 and; R.K. Nanda, Adv. for O.P. No. 2',
			'court' => 'Orissa',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2005-10-07',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => ' A.K. Samantaray, J.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">A.K. Samantaray, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. In this Criminal Misc. Case under Section 482, Cr.P.C. the petitioners who are father and sort have prayed for quashing of the order of cognizance dated 19.12.2003 in G.R. Case No. 23 of 2003 passed by learned J.M.F.C.. Patrapur (GM). Learned Magistrate took cognizance of the offences under Sections 341, 323, 392, 506/34, IPC on the allegation of opposite party No. 2.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The prosecution case, as it appears from the complaint petition which was subsequently treated as FIR as per the direction of the learned Magistrate under Section 156(3), CrPC, in short is that the complainant-opposite party No. 2 A. Ranga Rao. petitioner No. 1 Krushna Chandra Sahu, Rajendra Kumar Sahu. Basudev Panda. Pravakar Sabat and Prafulla Kumar Sahu constituted a firm in the name and style of 'Madhupriya Estate'. They also executed a partnership deed on 1.8,1998 and according to the terms of the partnership deed they had to share the capital. It is alleged that petitioner No. 1 Krushna Chandra Sahu did not render any account, income and expenditure of the firm to the complainant-partner A. Ranga Rao, For this act of petitioner No. 1 the relationship between the complainant and the petitioner No. 1 soured. When the complainant insisted for rendering accounts petitioner No. 1 did not give the same and misappropriated the firm's money. It is also alleged that the complainant had reported the matter on 15.10.2002 at Golanthara PS, but the police did not take any action on the matter. It is also alleged in the complaint petition that on 5.2.2003 both the petitioner came in a Motor-cycle, rebuked the complainant, threatened him. dealt fist blows and took away cash of Rs. 20,000/- from his pocket when he was proceeding on the canal road towards Berhampur town. On these allegations a complaint petition was filed alleging further that the complainant had been to the police and the police called him 4-5 times, but ultimately did not take any action. The said complaint petition filed before the learned Magistrate on 17.2.2003 was registered as ICC No. 2/2003 and subsequently the learned Magistrate forwarded the complaint petition to the OIC. Golanthara PS to treat the same as FIR under Section 156(3). CrPC. and to proceed with the same in accordance with law. On receipt of the said complaint from the Court the Golanthara police treated the same as FIR, registered Golanthara PS case No. 98/ 2003 for the offence under Sections 341, 323, 392 and 506/34 IPC and proceeded with the investigation and on completion of the investigation submitted charge-sheet. Although there was no legal material available/collected during the course of the investigation and the learned Magistrate after receipt of the charge-sheet without application of his judicial mind and without considering the backdrop which resulted in the initiation of the case against the petitioners, took cognizance of the offence it is alleged.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. The salient grounds taken by the petitioners in this application' under Section 482, CrPC to quash the order of cognizance are that there exists dispute of civil nature between the parties arising out of the partnership firm. The complainant-opposite party No. 2 since failed in his attempt to rope in petitioner . No. 1 in another criminal case which he had earlier initiated against him, he has come out with the frivolous complaint to wreck vengeance against the petitioners who are father and son and are in no way involved in the alleged offences.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. During the hearing of the petition and also on a perusal of the complaint/FIR and the case diary I come to find that the parties had admittedly started a real estate business and it is also admitted fact that there was a partnership deed executed by the parties to the said partnership firm on 1.8.1998 where this petitioner No. l Krushna Chandra Sahu, A. Ranga Rao, the complainant, Rajendra Kumar Sahu, Basudev Panda, Pravakar Sabat and Prafulla Kumar Sahu were the partners. On a scrutiny of the said partnership deed which contains many clauses regarding the function of the firm, share to be contributed, role which be played by each partner have been specifically mentioned in the said deed. In clause 18 there is specific mention that any dispute or difference arising amongst the partners with respect to the construction or interpretation of the deed or any other matter relating to the partnership affairs shall be referred to arbitration under the provisions of Indian Arbitration Act by appointing Arbitrator.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners argued that since undisputedly there is a partnership firm and the entire allegation of the complainant hinges round the said partnership business and when particularly there is a clause in the partnership deed that any dispute between the parties shall be referred to an Arbitrator by appointing one under the Arbitration Act, whose decision shall be final and binding on the parties to which all the partners including the complainant agreed, filing of a complaint petition on flimsy and false allegations against another partner and his son is totally unwarranted.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. Taking me into col.6 of the complaint petition of the complainant, learned Counsel for the petitioner pointed out that the alleged occurrence, according to the petitioner, took place on 5.2.2003 which has been mentioned in the said column. But in the said column it is also mentioned that the complainant lodged a report at Golanthara PS regarding the incident on 16.10.2002. He argued vehemently that this is itself is a glaring instance as to how the case is a false and frivolous one initiated to wreck vengeance and when the occurrence itself according to the complainant took place on 5.2.2003, report regarding such occurrence could not have been lodged at the police station on 16.10.2002. Learned counsel also took me through the statements of the other partners of the firm recorded by the I.O. under Section 161, CrPC., who have all stated that the complainant-opposite party No. 2 had dispute relating to the partnership firm with petitioner No. 1 Krushna Chandra Sahu for non-contribution of Rs. l lakh to the firm by complainant-opposite party No. 2. He further took me to the case diary wherein during the investigation of the case the I.O. has categorically mentioned that during the year 2002, due to misunderstanding that prevailed between the parties, the dispute arising out of the partnership firm and the contribution to the same the complainant-opposite party No. 2 reported on 17.10.2002 and 20.1.2003 and petitioner No. 1 Krushna Chandra Sahu had reported on 20.1.2003 and since the allegations related to the partnership firm and both had alleged against each other and no document could be produced to substantiate the allegations the police had made only station diary entries as the dispute was found to be civil nature. Apart from that, the parties became political rivals of each other during the Panchayat and Zilla Parishad elections, although earlier they belonged to one party. Lastly, it was submitted by learned Counsel for the petitioner that the entire episode which has been narrated in the complaint petition is the outcome of the partnership business and if the complainant had any grudge and any doubt regarding misappropriation of partnership fund by the accused petitioner No. l, he could have taken shelter in the appropriate forum by filing civil litigation. Without doing so, he has resorted to criminal prosecution on very flimsy-ground and not only that he has implicated the son of petitioner No. 1 who is an engineering student and prosecuting his study, he submitted.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. It is apparent on record that petitioner No. 1 is businessman and it is submitted by learned Counsel for the petitioner that he is an income tax assessee and the allegation that has been brought by the complainant in his complaint petition which was subsequently treated as FIR by order of learned Magistrate is that the petitioners obstructed the complainant on his way while he was proceeding in his motor-cycle, threatened him, dealt pushes and fist blows, criminally intimidated him and took away cash of Rs. 20,000/- from his pocket. On the face of all these earlier disputes between the parties allegations and counter allegations against each other and political rivalry and the other facts that I have discussed in the preceding paragraphs relating to. the report about this incident to the police even before it took place, makes the matter highly suspicious, rather improbable.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. Learned Addl. Standing Counsel appearing for the State submitted that enmity being, a double edged weapon and in the instant case when the police has submitted charge-sheet and the learned Magistrate has taken cognizance of the offence basing on the same, the order of cognizance should not be quashed as the truth or otherwise of the matter can be ascertained only after a legitimate trial of the petitioners in the Court of learned Magistrate. Learned counsel for the petitioner, on the other hand, relying on a decision reported in : 1992CriLJ527 (State of Haryana v. Ch. Bhajanlal and Ors.) submitted in the light of the said judgment that in the instant case, the FIR of the complainant, even it is taken on its face value and accepted in its entirety it does not constitute any offence or make out any case against the petitioners. He also submitted that the allegations in the complaint/FIR are so absurd and inherently improbable that on the basis of the same no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion. He vehemently urged that this criminal proceeding even manifestly attended with mala fide and the same is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wrecking vengeance on the accused-petitioners with a view to spite them due to private and personal grudge.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. On the admitted factual position and the constant rift between the parties which culminated out of partnership firm and subsequent political rivalry has given rise to this criminal case and the valid object behind this lame prosecution, the very nature of the material on which the structure of the prosecution rests are sufficient for this Court to quash the proceeding in the interest of justice as ends of justice are higher than the ends of mere law though justice has got to be administered according to the laws made by the Legislature. In my view, this is a fit case where the inherent power u/s 482, CrPC should be exercised to quash the proceeding as the entire prosecution case rests on false, frivolous and vexatious allegations and to allow continuance of the proceeding would be sheer misuse of the process of the Court.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. In the result, I quash the order of cognizance order dated 19.12.2003 in G.R. Case No. 23 of 2003 pending in the Court of J.M.F.C., Patrapur and so also the criminal proceeding.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">11. The Criminal Misc. Case is accordingly allowed.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '2005(II)OLR793',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'State of Orissa and anr.',
			'sub' => 'Criminal',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'krushna-chandra-sahu-vs-state-orissa',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '535665',
		(int) 1 => 'krushna-chandra-sahu-vs-state-orissa'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Krushna Chandra Sahu and anr Vs State of Orissa and anr - Citation 535665 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '535665',
		'acts' => 'Arbitration Act; <a href="/act/50902/code-of-criminal-procedure-1973-complete-act">Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1973</a> - Sections 156(3), 161 and 482; Indian Penal Code (IPC) - Sections 34, 323, 341, 392 and 506',
		'appealno' => 'Crl. Misc. Case No. 1814 of 2004',
		'appellant' => 'Krushna Chandra Sahu and anr.',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Krushna Chandra Sahu and anr. Vs. State of Orissa and anr.',
		'casenote' => 'Criminal - Cognizance - Quashing of - Section 156(3) of Code of Criminal Procedure,1973(Cr. PC) and Sections 34, 323, 341, 392 and 506 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) - Respondent and petitioners constituted partnership firm according - Petitioners misappropriated firm's money - Respondent approached police for lodging FIR against petitioners - Police refused to lodged FIR - Respondent filed complaint before Magistrate under Section 156(3) of Cr. P. C. - Magistrate allowed complaint and directed police to lodge FIR - Police officer lodged FIR against petitioners for commission of offence under Sections 341, 323, 392 and 506/34 of IPC and conducted investigation - On completion of investigation, police submitted charge sheet and Magistrate took cognizance of offence against petitioners - Hence, present writ petition filed seeking quashment of cognizance taken - Held, from facts and available material on record it established that respondent falsely implicated petitioners in present case due to dispute arose between them in relation to partnership firm running by them - Sufficient ground exist behind present lame prosecution and sufficient reasons and evidences exist to quash the same - Accordingly, writ petition allowed and order of cognizance quashed  - LABOUR & SERVICES 
Pay Scale:[Tarun Chatterjee & R.M. Lodha,JJ] Fixation - Orissa Service Code (1939), Rule 74(b)  Promotion - Government servant, by virtue of Rule 74(b), gets higher pay than what he was getting immediately before his promotion - Circular Dated 19.3.1983 modifying earlier Circular Dated 18.6.1982 resulting in  reduction of pay of employee on promotion  Held, It is not legal. Statutory Rules cannot be altered or amended by such Executive orders or Circulars or Instructions nor can they replace Statutory Rules.
 -  2 since failed in his attempt to rope in petitioner .No.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '(State of Haryana v. Ch. Bhajanlal and Ors.;',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => ' R.K. Nayak,;P.C. Jena
and;S.P. Dash, Advs.',
		'counseldef' => ' Addl. Standing Counsel for O.P. No. 1 and; R.K. Nanda, Adv. for O.P. No. 2',
		'court' => 'Orissa',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2005-10-07',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => ' A.K. Samantaray, J.',
		'judgement' => '<p>A.K. Samantaray, J.</p><p>1. In this Criminal Misc. Case under Section 482, Cr.P.C. the petitioners who are father and sort have prayed for quashing of the order of cognizance dated 19.12.2003 in G.R. Case No. 23 of 2003 passed by learned J.M.F.C.. Patrapur (GM). Learned Magistrate took cognizance of the offences under Sections 341, 323, 392, 506/34, IPC on the allegation of opposite party No. 2.</p><p>2. The prosecution case, as it appears from the complaint petition which was subsequently treated as FIR as per the direction of the learned Magistrate under Section 156(3), CrPC, in short is that the complainant-opposite party No. 2 A. Ranga Rao. petitioner No. 1 Krushna Chandra Sahu, Rajendra Kumar Sahu. Basudev Panda. Pravakar Sabat and Prafulla Kumar Sahu constituted a firm in the name and style of 'Madhupriya Estate'. They also executed a partnership deed on 1.8,1998 and according to the terms of the partnership deed they had to share the capital. It is alleged that petitioner No. 1 Krushna Chandra Sahu did not render any account, income and expenditure of the firm to the complainant-partner A. Ranga Rao, For this act of petitioner No. 1 the relationship between the complainant and the petitioner No. 1 soured. When the complainant insisted for rendering accounts petitioner No. 1 did not give the same and misappropriated the firm's money. It is also alleged that the complainant had reported the matter on 15.10.2002 at Golanthara PS, but the police did not take any action on the matter. It is also alleged in the complaint petition that on 5.2.2003 both the petitioner came in a Motor-cycle, rebuked the complainant, threatened him. dealt fist blows and took away cash of Rs. 20,000/- from his pocket when he was proceeding on the canal road towards Berhampur town. On these allegations a complaint petition was filed alleging further that the complainant had been to the police and the police called him 4-5 times, but ultimately did not take any action. The said complaint petition filed before the learned Magistrate on 17.2.2003 was registered as ICC No. 2/2003 and subsequently the learned Magistrate forwarded the complaint petition to the OIC. Golanthara PS to treat the same as FIR under Section 156(3). CrPC. and to proceed with the same in accordance with law. On receipt of the said complaint from the Court the Golanthara police treated the same as FIR, registered Golanthara PS case No. 98/ 2003 for the offence under Sections 341, 323, 392 and 506/34 IPC and proceeded with the investigation and on completion of the investigation submitted charge-sheet. Although there was no legal material available/collected during the course of the investigation and the learned Magistrate after receipt of the charge-sheet without application of his judicial mind and without considering the backdrop which resulted in the initiation of the case against the petitioners, took cognizance of the offence it is alleged.</p><p>3. The salient grounds taken by the petitioners in this application' under Section 482, CrPC to quash the order of cognizance are that there exists dispute of civil nature between the parties arising out of the partnership firm. The complainant-opposite party No. 2 since failed in his attempt to rope in petitioner . No. 1 in another criminal case which he had earlier initiated against him, he has come out with the frivolous complaint to wreck vengeance against the petitioners who are father and son and are in no way involved in the alleged offences.</p><p>4. During the hearing of the petition and also on a perusal of the complaint/FIR and the case diary I come to find that the parties had admittedly started a real estate business and it is also admitted fact that there was a partnership deed executed by the parties to the said partnership firm on 1.8.1998 where this petitioner No. l Krushna Chandra Sahu, A. Ranga Rao, the complainant, Rajendra Kumar Sahu, Basudev Panda, Pravakar Sabat and Prafulla Kumar Sahu were the partners. On a scrutiny of the said partnership deed which contains many clauses regarding the function of the firm, share to be contributed, role which be played by each partner have been specifically mentioned in the said deed. In clause 18 there is specific mention that any dispute or difference arising amongst the partners with respect to the construction or interpretation of the deed or any other matter relating to the partnership affairs shall be referred to arbitration under the provisions of Indian Arbitration Act by appointing Arbitrator.</p><p>5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners argued that since undisputedly there is a partnership firm and the entire allegation of the complainant hinges round the said partnership business and when particularly there is a clause in the partnership deed that any dispute between the parties shall be referred to an Arbitrator by appointing one under the Arbitration Act, whose decision shall be final and binding on the parties to which all the partners including the complainant agreed, filing of a complaint petition on flimsy and false allegations against another partner and his son is totally unwarranted.</p><p>6. Taking me into col.6 of the complaint petition of the complainant, learned Counsel for the petitioner pointed out that the alleged occurrence, according to the petitioner, took place on 5.2.2003 which has been mentioned in the said column. But in the said column it is also mentioned that the complainant lodged a report at Golanthara PS regarding the incident on 16.10.2002. He argued vehemently that this is itself is a glaring instance as to how the case is a false and frivolous one initiated to wreck vengeance and when the occurrence itself according to the complainant took place on 5.2.2003, report regarding such occurrence could not have been lodged at the police station on 16.10.2002. Learned counsel also took me through the statements of the other partners of the firm recorded by the I.O. under Section 161, CrPC., who have all stated that the complainant-opposite party No. 2 had dispute relating to the partnership firm with petitioner No. 1 Krushna Chandra Sahu for non-contribution of Rs. l lakh to the firm by complainant-opposite party No. 2. He further took me to the case diary wherein during the investigation of the case the I.O. has categorically mentioned that during the year 2002, due to misunderstanding that prevailed between the parties, the dispute arising out of the partnership firm and the contribution to the same the complainant-opposite party No. 2 reported on 17.10.2002 and 20.1.2003 and petitioner No. 1 Krushna Chandra Sahu had reported on 20.1.2003 and since the allegations related to the partnership firm and both had alleged against each other and no document could be produced to substantiate the allegations the police had made only station diary entries as the dispute was found to be civil nature. Apart from that, the parties became political rivals of each other during the Panchayat and Zilla Parishad elections, although earlier they belonged to one party. Lastly, it was submitted by learned Counsel for the petitioner that the entire episode which has been narrated in the complaint petition is the outcome of the partnership business and if the complainant had any grudge and any doubt regarding misappropriation of partnership fund by the accused petitioner No. l, he could have taken shelter in the appropriate forum by filing civil litigation. Without doing so, he has resorted to criminal prosecution on very flimsy-ground and not only that he has implicated the son of petitioner No. 1 who is an engineering student and prosecuting his study, he submitted.</p><p>7. It is apparent on record that petitioner No. 1 is businessman and it is submitted by learned Counsel for the petitioner that he is an income tax assessee and the allegation that has been brought by the complainant in his complaint petition which was subsequently treated as FIR by order of learned Magistrate is that the petitioners obstructed the complainant on his way while he was proceeding in his motor-cycle, threatened him, dealt pushes and fist blows, criminally intimidated him and took away cash of Rs. 20,000/- from his pocket. On the face of all these earlier disputes between the parties allegations and counter allegations against each other and political rivalry and the other facts that I have discussed in the preceding paragraphs relating to. the report about this incident to the police even before it took place, makes the matter highly suspicious, rather improbable.</p><p>8. Learned Addl. Standing Counsel appearing for the State submitted that enmity being, a double edged weapon and in the instant case when the police has submitted charge-sheet and the learned Magistrate has taken cognizance of the offence basing on the same, the order of cognizance should not be quashed as the truth or otherwise of the matter can be ascertained only after a legitimate trial of the petitioners in the Court of learned Magistrate. Learned counsel for the petitioner, on the other hand, relying on a decision reported in : 1992CriLJ527 (State of Haryana v. Ch. Bhajanlal and Ors.) submitted in the light of the said judgment that in the instant case, the FIR of the complainant, even it is taken on its face value and accepted in its entirety it does not constitute any offence or make out any case against the petitioners. He also submitted that the allegations in the complaint/FIR are so absurd and inherently improbable that on the basis of the same no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion. He vehemently urged that this criminal proceeding even manifestly attended with mala fide and the same is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wrecking vengeance on the accused-petitioners with a view to spite them due to private and personal grudge.</p><p>9. On the admitted factual position and the constant rift between the parties which culminated out of partnership firm and subsequent political rivalry has given rise to this criminal case and the valid object behind this lame prosecution, the very nature of the material on which the structure of the prosecution rests are sufficient for this Court to quash the proceeding in the interest of justice as ends of justice are higher than the ends of mere law though justice has got to be administered according to the laws made by the Legislature. In my view, this is a fit case where the inherent power u/s 482, CrPC should be exercised to quash the proceeding as the entire prosecution case rests on false, frivolous and vexatious allegations and to allow continuance of the proceeding would be sheer misuse of the process of the Court.</p><p>10. In the result, I quash the order of cognizance order dated 19.12.2003 in G.R. Case No. 23 of 2003 pending in the Court of J.M.F.C., Patrapur and so also the criminal proceeding.</p><p>11. The Criminal Misc. Case is accordingly allowed.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '2005(II)OLR793',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'State of Orissa and anr.',
		'sub' => 'Criminal',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'krushna-chandra-sahu-vs-state-orissa'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '535665',
	(int) 1 => 'krushna-chandra-sahu-vs-state-orissa'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/535665/krushna-chandra-sahu-vs-state-orissa'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$caseref = '(State of Haryana v. Ch. Bhajanlal and Ors.<br>'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>A.K. Samantaray, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. In this Criminal Misc. Case under Section 482, Cr.P.C. the petitioners who are father and sort have prayed for quashing of the order of cognizance dated 19.12.2003 in G.R. Case No. 23 of 2003 passed by learned J.M.F.C.. Patrapur (GM). Learned Magistrate took cognizance of the offences under Sections 341, 323, 392, 506/34, IPC on the allegation of opposite party No. 2.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. The prosecution case, as it appears from the complaint petition which was subsequently treated as FIR as per the direction of the learned Magistrate under Section 156(3), CrPC, in short is that the complainant-opposite party No. 2 A. Ranga Rao. petitioner No. 1 Krushna Chandra Sahu, Rajendra Kumar Sahu. Basudev Panda. Pravakar Sabat and Prafulla Kumar Sahu constituted a firm in the name and style of 'Madhupriya Estate'. They also executed a partnership deed on 1.8,1998 and according to the terms of the partnership deed they had to share the capital. It is alleged that petitioner No. 1 Krushna Chandra Sahu did not render any account, income and expenditure of the firm to the complainant-partner A. Ranga Rao, For this act of petitioner No. 1 the relationship between the complainant and the petitioner No. 1 soured. When the complainant insisted for rendering accounts petitioner No. 1 did not give the same and misappropriated the firm's money. It is also alleged that the complainant had reported the matter on 15.10.2002 at Golanthara PS, but the police did not take any action on the matter. It is also alleged in the complaint petition that on 5.2.2003 both the petitioner came in a Motor-cycle, rebuked the complainant, threatened him. dealt fist blows and took away cash of Rs. 20,000/- from his pocket when he was proceeding on the canal road towards Berhampur town. On these allegations a complaint petition was filed alleging further that the complainant had been to the police and the police called him 4-5 times, but ultimately did not take any action. The said complaint petition filed before the learned Magistrate on 17.2.2003 was registered as ICC No. 2/2003 and subsequently the learned Magistrate forwarded the complaint petition to the OIC. Golanthara PS to treat the same as FIR under Section 156(3). CrPC. and to proceed with the same in accordance with law. On receipt of the said complaint from the Court the Golanthara police treated the same as FIR, registered Golanthara PS case No. 98/ 2003 for the offence under Sections 341, 323, 392 and 506/34 IPC and proceeded with the investigation and on completion of the investigation submitted charge-sheet. Although there was no legal material available/collected during the course of the investigation and the learned Magistrate after receipt of the charge-sheet without application of his judicial mind and without considering the backdrop which resulted in the initiation of the case against the petitioners, took cognizance of the offence it is alleged.',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. The salient grounds taken by the petitioners in this application' under Section 482, CrPC to quash the order of cognizance are that there exists dispute of civil nature between the parties arising out of the partnership firm. The complainant-opposite party No. 2 since failed in his attempt to rope in petitioner . No. 1 in another criminal case which he had earlier initiated against him, he has come out with the frivolous complaint to wreck vengeance against the petitioners who are father and son and are in no way involved in the alleged offences.',
	(int) 4 => '<p>4. During the hearing of the petition and also on a perusal of the complaint/FIR and the case diary I come to find that the parties had admittedly started a real estate business and it is also admitted fact that there was a partnership deed executed by the parties to the said partnership firm on 1.8.1998 where this petitioner No. l Krushna Chandra Sahu, A. Ranga Rao, the complainant, Rajendra Kumar Sahu, Basudev Panda, Pravakar Sabat and Prafulla Kumar Sahu were the partners. On a scrutiny of the said partnership deed which contains many clauses regarding the function of the firm, share to be contributed, role which be played by each partner have been specifically mentioned in the said deed. In clause 18 there is specific mention that any dispute or difference arising amongst the partners with respect to the construction or interpretation of the deed or any other matter relating to the partnership affairs shall be referred to arbitration under the provisions of Indian Arbitration Act by appointing Arbitrator.',
	(int) 5 => '<p>5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners argued that since undisputedly there is a partnership firm and the entire allegation of the complainant hinges round the said partnership business and when particularly there is a clause in the partnership deed that any dispute between the parties shall be referred to an Arbitrator by appointing one under the Arbitration Act, whose decision shall be final and binding on the parties to which all the partners including the complainant agreed, filing of a complaint petition on flimsy and false allegations against another partner and his son is totally unwarranted.',
	(int) 6 => '<p>6. Taking me into col.6 of the complaint petition of the complainant, learned Counsel for the petitioner pointed out that the alleged occurrence, according to the petitioner, took place on 5.2.2003 which has been mentioned in the said column. But in the said column it is also mentioned that the complainant lodged a report at Golanthara PS regarding the incident on 16.10.2002. He argued vehemently that this is itself is a glaring instance as to how the case is a false and frivolous one initiated to wreck vengeance and when the occurrence itself according to the complainant took place on 5.2.2003, report regarding such occurrence could not have been lodged at the police station on 16.10.2002. Learned counsel also took me through the statements of the other partners of the firm recorded by the I.O. under Section 161, CrPC., who have all stated that the complainant-opposite party No. 2 had dispute relating to the partnership firm with petitioner No. 1 Krushna Chandra Sahu for non-contribution of Rs. l lakh to the firm by complainant-opposite party No. 2. He further took me to the case diary wherein during the investigation of the case the I.O. has categorically mentioned that during the year 2002, due to misunderstanding that prevailed between the parties, the dispute arising out of the partnership firm and the contribution to the same the complainant-opposite party No. 2 reported on 17.10.2002 and 20.1.2003 and petitioner No. 1 Krushna Chandra Sahu had reported on 20.1.2003 and since the allegations related to the partnership firm and both had alleged against each other and no document could be produced to substantiate the allegations the police had made only station diary entries as the dispute was found to be civil nature. Apart from that, the parties became political rivals of each other during the Panchayat and Zilla Parishad elections, although earlier they belonged to one party. Lastly, it was submitted by learned Counsel for the petitioner that the entire episode which has been narrated in the complaint petition is the outcome of the partnership business and if the complainant had any grudge and any doubt regarding misappropriation of partnership fund by the accused petitioner No. l, he could have taken shelter in the appropriate forum by filing civil litigation. Without doing so, he has resorted to criminal prosecution on very flimsy-ground and not only that he has implicated the son of petitioner No. 1 who is an engineering student and prosecuting his study, he submitted.',
	(int) 7 => '<p>7. It is apparent on record that petitioner No. 1 is businessman and it is submitted by learned Counsel for the petitioner that he is an income tax assessee and the allegation that has been brought by the complainant in his complaint petition which was subsequently treated as FIR by order of learned Magistrate is that the petitioners obstructed the complainant on his way while he was proceeding in his motor-cycle, threatened him, dealt pushes and fist blows, criminally intimidated him and took away cash of Rs. 20,000/- from his pocket. On the face of all these earlier disputes between the parties allegations and counter allegations against each other and political rivalry and the other facts that I have discussed in the preceding paragraphs relating to. the report about this incident to the police even before it took place, makes the matter highly suspicious, rather improbable.',
	(int) 8 => '<p>8. Learned Addl. Standing Counsel appearing for the State submitted that enmity being, a double edged weapon and in the instant case when the police has submitted charge-sheet and the learned Magistrate has taken cognizance of the offence basing on the same, the order of cognizance should not be quashed as the truth or otherwise of the matter can be ascertained only after a legitimate trial of the petitioners in the Court of learned Magistrate. Learned counsel for the petitioner, on the other hand, relying on a decision reported in : 1992CriLJ527 (State of Haryana v. Ch. Bhajanlal and Ors.) submitted in the light of the said judgment that in the instant case, the FIR of the complainant, even it is taken on its face value and accepted in its entirety it does not constitute any offence or make out any case against the petitioners. He also submitted that the allegations in the complaint/FIR are so absurd and inherently improbable that on the basis of the same no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion. He vehemently urged that this criminal proceeding even manifestly attended with mala fide and the same is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wrecking vengeance on the accused-petitioners with a view to spite them due to private and personal grudge.',
	(int) 9 => '<p>9. On the admitted factual position and the constant rift between the parties which culminated out of partnership firm and subsequent political rivalry has given rise to this criminal case and the valid object behind this lame prosecution, the very nature of the material on which the structure of the prosecution rests are sufficient for this Court to quash the proceeding in the interest of justice as ends of justice are higher than the ends of mere law though justice has got to be administered according to the laws made by the Legislature. In my view, this is a fit case where the inherent power u/s 482, CrPC should be exercised to quash the proceeding as the entire prosecution case rests on false, frivolous and vexatious allegations and to allow continuance of the proceeding would be sheer misuse of the process of the Court.',
	(int) 10 => '<p>10. In the result, I quash the order of cognizance order dated 19.12.2003 in G.R. Case No. 23 of 2003 pending in the Court of J.M.F.C., Patrapur and so also the criminal proceeding.',
	(int) 11 => '<p>11. The Criminal Misc. Case is accordingly allowed.<p>',
	(int) 12 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 13
$i = (int) 11
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

11. The Criminal Misc. Case is accordingly allowed.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Context                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Krushna Chandra Sahu and anr Vs State of Orissa and anr - Citation 535665 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '535665',
			'acts' => 'Arbitration Act; <a href="/act/50902/code-of-criminal-procedure-1973-complete-act">Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1973</a> - Sections 156(3), 161 and 482; Indian Penal Code (IPC) - Sections 34, 323, 341, 392 and 506',
			'appealno' => 'Crl. Misc. Case No. 1814 of 2004',
			'appellant' => 'Krushna Chandra Sahu and anr.',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Krushna Chandra Sahu and anr. Vs. State of Orissa and anr.',
			'casenote' => 'Criminal - Cognizance - Quashing of - Section 156(3) of Code of Criminal Procedure,1973(Cr. PC) and Sections 34, 323, 341, 392 and 506 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) - Respondent and petitioners constituted partnership firm according - Petitioners misappropriated firm's money - Respondent approached police for lodging FIR against petitioners - Police refused to lodged FIR - Respondent filed complaint before Magistrate under Section 156(3) of Cr. P. C. - Magistrate allowed complaint and directed police to lodge FIR - Police officer lodged FIR against petitioners for commission of offence under Sections 341, 323, 392 and 506/34 of IPC and conducted investigation - On completion of investigation, police submitted charge sheet and Magistrate took cognizance of offence against petitioners - Hence, present writ petition filed seeking quashment of cognizance taken - Held, from facts and available material on record it established that respondent falsely implicated petitioners in present case due to dispute arose between them in relation to partnership firm running by them - Sufficient ground exist behind present lame prosecution and sufficient reasons and evidences exist to quash the same - Accordingly, writ petition allowed and order of cognizance quashed  - LABOUR & SERVICES 
Pay Scale:[Tarun Chatterjee & R.M. Lodha,JJ] Fixation - Orissa Service Code (1939), Rule 74(b)  Promotion - Government servant, by virtue of Rule 74(b), gets higher pay than what he was getting immediately before his promotion - Circular Dated 19.3.1983 modifying earlier Circular Dated 18.6.1982 resulting in  reduction of pay of employee on promotion  Held, It is not legal. Statutory Rules cannot be altered or amended by such Executive orders or Circulars or Instructions nor can they replace Statutory Rules.
 -  2 since failed in his attempt to rope in petitioner .No.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '(State of Haryana v. Ch. Bhajanlal and Ors.;',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => ' R.K. Nayak,;P.C. Jena
and;S.P. Dash, Advs.',
			'counseldef' => ' Addl. Standing Counsel for O.P. No. 1 and; R.K. Nanda, Adv. for O.P. No. 2',
			'court' => 'Orissa',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2005-10-07',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => ' A.K. Samantaray, J.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">A.K. Samantaray, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. In this Criminal Misc. Case under Section 482, Cr.P.C. the petitioners who are father and sort have prayed for quashing of the order of cognizance dated 19.12.2003 in G.R. Case No. 23 of 2003 passed by learned J.M.F.C.. Patrapur (GM). Learned Magistrate took cognizance of the offences under Sections 341, 323, 392, 506/34, IPC on the allegation of opposite party No. 2.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The prosecution case, as it appears from the complaint petition which was subsequently treated as FIR as per the direction of the learned Magistrate under Section 156(3), CrPC, in short is that the complainant-opposite party No. 2 A. Ranga Rao. petitioner No. 1 Krushna Chandra Sahu, Rajendra Kumar Sahu. Basudev Panda. Pravakar Sabat and Prafulla Kumar Sahu constituted a firm in the name and style of 'Madhupriya Estate'. They also executed a partnership deed on 1.8,1998 and according to the terms of the partnership deed they had to share the capital. It is alleged that petitioner No. 1 Krushna Chandra Sahu did not render any account, income and expenditure of the firm to the complainant-partner A. Ranga Rao, For this act of petitioner No. 1 the relationship between the complainant and the petitioner No. 1 soured. When the complainant insisted for rendering accounts petitioner No. 1 did not give the same and misappropriated the firm's money. It is also alleged that the complainant had reported the matter on 15.10.2002 at Golanthara PS, but the police did not take any action on the matter. It is also alleged in the complaint petition that on 5.2.2003 both the petitioner came in a Motor-cycle, rebuked the complainant, threatened him. dealt fist blows and took away cash of Rs. 20,000/- from his pocket when he was proceeding on the canal road towards Berhampur town. On these allegations a complaint petition was filed alleging further that the complainant had been to the police and the police called him 4-5 times, but ultimately did not take any action. The said complaint petition filed before the learned Magistrate on 17.2.2003 was registered as ICC No. 2/2003 and subsequently the learned Magistrate forwarded the complaint petition to the OIC. Golanthara PS to treat the same as FIR under Section 156(3). CrPC. and to proceed with the same in accordance with law. On receipt of the said complaint from the Court the Golanthara police treated the same as FIR, registered Golanthara PS case No. 98/ 2003 for the offence under Sections 341, 323, 392 and 506/34 IPC and proceeded with the investigation and on completion of the investigation submitted charge-sheet. Although there was no legal material available/collected during the course of the investigation and the learned Magistrate after receipt of the charge-sheet without application of his judicial mind and without considering the backdrop which resulted in the initiation of the case against the petitioners, took cognizance of the offence it is alleged.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. The salient grounds taken by the petitioners in this application' under Section 482, CrPC to quash the order of cognizance are that there exists dispute of civil nature between the parties arising out of the partnership firm. The complainant-opposite party No. 2 since failed in his attempt to rope in petitioner . No. 1 in another criminal case which he had earlier initiated against him, he has come out with the frivolous complaint to wreck vengeance against the petitioners who are father and son and are in no way involved in the alleged offences.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. During the hearing of the petition and also on a perusal of the complaint/FIR and the case diary I come to find that the parties had admittedly started a real estate business and it is also admitted fact that there was a partnership deed executed by the parties to the said partnership firm on 1.8.1998 where this petitioner No. l Krushna Chandra Sahu, A. Ranga Rao, the complainant, Rajendra Kumar Sahu, Basudev Panda, Pravakar Sabat and Prafulla Kumar Sahu were the partners. On a scrutiny of the said partnership deed which contains many clauses regarding the function of the firm, share to be contributed, role which be played by each partner have been specifically mentioned in the said deed. In clause 18 there is specific mention that any dispute or difference arising amongst the partners with respect to the construction or interpretation of the deed or any other matter relating to the partnership affairs shall be referred to arbitration under the provisions of Indian Arbitration Act by appointing Arbitrator.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners argued that since undisputedly there is a partnership firm and the entire allegation of the complainant hinges round the said partnership business and when particularly there is a clause in the partnership deed that any dispute between the parties shall be referred to an Arbitrator by appointing one under the Arbitration Act, whose decision shall be final and binding on the parties to which all the partners including the complainant agreed, filing of a complaint petition on flimsy and false allegations against another partner and his son is totally unwarranted.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. Taking me into col.6 of the complaint petition of the complainant, learned Counsel for the petitioner pointed out that the alleged occurrence, according to the petitioner, took place on 5.2.2003 which has been mentioned in the said column. But in the said column it is also mentioned that the complainant lodged a report at Golanthara PS regarding the incident on 16.10.2002. He argued vehemently that this is itself is a glaring instance as to how the case is a false and frivolous one initiated to wreck vengeance and when the occurrence itself according to the complainant took place on 5.2.2003, report regarding such occurrence could not have been lodged at the police station on 16.10.2002. Learned counsel also took me through the statements of the other partners of the firm recorded by the I.O. under Section 161, CrPC., who have all stated that the complainant-opposite party No. 2 had dispute relating to the partnership firm with petitioner No. 1 Krushna Chandra Sahu for non-contribution of Rs. l lakh to the firm by complainant-opposite party No. 2. He further took me to the case diary wherein during the investigation of the case the I.O. has categorically mentioned that during the year 2002, due to misunderstanding that prevailed between the parties, the dispute arising out of the partnership firm and the contribution to the same the complainant-opposite party No. 2 reported on 17.10.2002 and 20.1.2003 and petitioner No. 1 Krushna Chandra Sahu had reported on 20.1.2003 and since the allegations related to the partnership firm and both had alleged against each other and no document could be produced to substantiate the allegations the police had made only station diary entries as the dispute was found to be civil nature. Apart from that, the parties became political rivals of each other during the Panchayat and Zilla Parishad elections, although earlier they belonged to one party. Lastly, it was submitted by learned Counsel for the petitioner that the entire episode which has been narrated in the complaint petition is the outcome of the partnership business and if the complainant had any grudge and any doubt regarding misappropriation of partnership fund by the accused petitioner No. l, he could have taken shelter in the appropriate forum by filing civil litigation. Without doing so, he has resorted to criminal prosecution on very flimsy-ground and not only that he has implicated the son of petitioner No. 1 who is an engineering student and prosecuting his study, he submitted.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. It is apparent on record that petitioner No. 1 is businessman and it is submitted by learned Counsel for the petitioner that he is an income tax assessee and the allegation that has been brought by the complainant in his complaint petition which was subsequently treated as FIR by order of learned Magistrate is that the petitioners obstructed the complainant on his way while he was proceeding in his motor-cycle, threatened him, dealt pushes and fist blows, criminally intimidated him and took away cash of Rs. 20,000/- from his pocket. On the face of all these earlier disputes between the parties allegations and counter allegations against each other and political rivalry and the other facts that I have discussed in the preceding paragraphs relating to. the report about this incident to the police even before it took place, makes the matter highly suspicious, rather improbable.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. Learned Addl. Standing Counsel appearing for the State submitted that enmity being, a double edged weapon and in the instant case when the police has submitted charge-sheet and the learned Magistrate has taken cognizance of the offence basing on the same, the order of cognizance should not be quashed as the truth or otherwise of the matter can be ascertained only after a legitimate trial of the petitioners in the Court of learned Magistrate. Learned counsel for the petitioner, on the other hand, relying on a decision reported in : 1992CriLJ527 (State of Haryana v. Ch. Bhajanlal and Ors.) submitted in the light of the said judgment that in the instant case, the FIR of the complainant, even it is taken on its face value and accepted in its entirety it does not constitute any offence or make out any case against the petitioners. He also submitted that the allegations in the complaint/FIR are so absurd and inherently improbable that on the basis of the same no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion. He vehemently urged that this criminal proceeding even manifestly attended with mala fide and the same is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wrecking vengeance on the accused-petitioners with a view to spite them due to private and personal grudge.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. On the admitted factual position and the constant rift between the parties which culminated out of partnership firm and subsequent political rivalry has given rise to this criminal case and the valid object behind this lame prosecution, the very nature of the material on which the structure of the prosecution rests are sufficient for this Court to quash the proceeding in the interest of justice as ends of justice are higher than the ends of mere law though justice has got to be administered according to the laws made by the Legislature. In my view, this is a fit case where the inherent power u/s 482, CrPC should be exercised to quash the proceeding as the entire prosecution case rests on false, frivolous and vexatious allegations and to allow continuance of the proceeding would be sheer misuse of the process of the Court.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. In the result, I quash the order of cognizance order dated 19.12.2003 in G.R. Case No. 23 of 2003 pending in the Court of J.M.F.C., Patrapur and so also the criminal proceeding.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">11. The Criminal Misc. Case is accordingly allowed.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '2005(II)OLR793',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'State of Orissa and anr.',
			'sub' => 'Criminal',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'krushna-chandra-sahu-vs-state-orissa',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '535665',
		(int) 1 => 'krushna-chandra-sahu-vs-state-orissa'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Krushna Chandra Sahu and anr Vs State of Orissa and anr - Citation 535665 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '535665',
		'acts' => 'Arbitration Act; <a href="/act/50902/code-of-criminal-procedure-1973-complete-act">Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1973</a> - Sections 156(3), 161 and 482; Indian Penal Code (IPC) - Sections 34, 323, 341, 392 and 506',
		'appealno' => 'Crl. Misc. Case No. 1814 of 2004',
		'appellant' => 'Krushna Chandra Sahu and anr.',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Krushna Chandra Sahu and anr. Vs. State of Orissa and anr.',
		'casenote' => 'Criminal - Cognizance - Quashing of - Section 156(3) of Code of Criminal Procedure,1973(Cr. PC) and Sections 34, 323, 341, 392 and 506 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) - Respondent and petitioners constituted partnership firm according - Petitioners misappropriated firm's money - Respondent approached police for lodging FIR against petitioners - Police refused to lodged FIR - Respondent filed complaint before Magistrate under Section 156(3) of Cr. P. C. - Magistrate allowed complaint and directed police to lodge FIR - Police officer lodged FIR against petitioners for commission of offence under Sections 341, 323, 392 and 506/34 of IPC and conducted investigation - On completion of investigation, police submitted charge sheet and Magistrate took cognizance of offence against petitioners - Hence, present writ petition filed seeking quashment of cognizance taken - Held, from facts and available material on record it established that respondent falsely implicated petitioners in present case due to dispute arose between them in relation to partnership firm running by them - Sufficient ground exist behind present lame prosecution and sufficient reasons and evidences exist to quash the same - Accordingly, writ petition allowed and order of cognizance quashed  - LABOUR & SERVICES 
Pay Scale:[Tarun Chatterjee & R.M. Lodha,JJ] Fixation - Orissa Service Code (1939), Rule 74(b)  Promotion - Government servant, by virtue of Rule 74(b), gets higher pay than what he was getting immediately before his promotion - Circular Dated 19.3.1983 modifying earlier Circular Dated 18.6.1982 resulting in  reduction of pay of employee on promotion  Held, It is not legal. Statutory Rules cannot be altered or amended by such Executive orders or Circulars or Instructions nor can they replace Statutory Rules.
 -  2 since failed in his attempt to rope in petitioner .No.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '(State of Haryana v. Ch. Bhajanlal and Ors.;',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => ' R.K. Nayak,;P.C. Jena
and;S.P. Dash, Advs.',
		'counseldef' => ' Addl. Standing Counsel for O.P. No. 1 and; R.K. Nanda, Adv. for O.P. No. 2',
		'court' => 'Orissa',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2005-10-07',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => ' A.K. Samantaray, J.',
		'judgement' => '<p>A.K. Samantaray, J.</p><p>1. In this Criminal Misc. Case under Section 482, Cr.P.C. the petitioners who are father and sort have prayed for quashing of the order of cognizance dated 19.12.2003 in G.R. Case No. 23 of 2003 passed by learned J.M.F.C.. Patrapur (GM). Learned Magistrate took cognizance of the offences under Sections 341, 323, 392, 506/34, IPC on the allegation of opposite party No. 2.</p><p>2. The prosecution case, as it appears from the complaint petition which was subsequently treated as FIR as per the direction of the learned Magistrate under Section 156(3), CrPC, in short is that the complainant-opposite party No. 2 A. Ranga Rao. petitioner No. 1 Krushna Chandra Sahu, Rajendra Kumar Sahu. Basudev Panda. Pravakar Sabat and Prafulla Kumar Sahu constituted a firm in the name and style of 'Madhupriya Estate'. They also executed a partnership deed on 1.8,1998 and according to the terms of the partnership deed they had to share the capital. It is alleged that petitioner No. 1 Krushna Chandra Sahu did not render any account, income and expenditure of the firm to the complainant-partner A. Ranga Rao, For this act of petitioner No. 1 the relationship between the complainant and the petitioner No. 1 soured. When the complainant insisted for rendering accounts petitioner No. 1 did not give the same and misappropriated the firm's money. It is also alleged that the complainant had reported the matter on 15.10.2002 at Golanthara PS, but the police did not take any action on the matter. It is also alleged in the complaint petition that on 5.2.2003 both the petitioner came in a Motor-cycle, rebuked the complainant, threatened him. dealt fist blows and took away cash of Rs. 20,000/- from his pocket when he was proceeding on the canal road towards Berhampur town. On these allegations a complaint petition was filed alleging further that the complainant had been to the police and the police called him 4-5 times, but ultimately did not take any action. The said complaint petition filed before the learned Magistrate on 17.2.2003 was registered as ICC No. 2/2003 and subsequently the learned Magistrate forwarded the complaint petition to the OIC. Golanthara PS to treat the same as FIR under Section 156(3). CrPC. and to proceed with the same in accordance with law. On receipt of the said complaint from the Court the Golanthara police treated the same as FIR, registered Golanthara PS case No. 98/ 2003 for the offence under Sections 341, 323, 392 and 506/34 IPC and proceeded with the investigation and on completion of the investigation submitted charge-sheet. Although there was no legal material available/collected during the course of the investigation and the learned Magistrate after receipt of the charge-sheet without application of his judicial mind and without considering the backdrop which resulted in the initiation of the case against the petitioners, took cognizance of the offence it is alleged.</p><p>3. The salient grounds taken by the petitioners in this application' under Section 482, CrPC to quash the order of cognizance are that there exists dispute of civil nature between the parties arising out of the partnership firm. The complainant-opposite party No. 2 since failed in his attempt to rope in petitioner . No. 1 in another criminal case which he had earlier initiated against him, he has come out with the frivolous complaint to wreck vengeance against the petitioners who are father and son and are in no way involved in the alleged offences.</p><p>4. During the hearing of the petition and also on a perusal of the complaint/FIR and the case diary I come to find that the parties had admittedly started a real estate business and it is also admitted fact that there was a partnership deed executed by the parties to the said partnership firm on 1.8.1998 where this petitioner No. l Krushna Chandra Sahu, A. Ranga Rao, the complainant, Rajendra Kumar Sahu, Basudev Panda, Pravakar Sabat and Prafulla Kumar Sahu were the partners. On a scrutiny of the said partnership deed which contains many clauses regarding the function of the firm, share to be contributed, role which be played by each partner have been specifically mentioned in the said deed. In clause 18 there is specific mention that any dispute or difference arising amongst the partners with respect to the construction or interpretation of the deed or any other matter relating to the partnership affairs shall be referred to arbitration under the provisions of Indian Arbitration Act by appointing Arbitrator.</p><p>5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners argued that since undisputedly there is a partnership firm and the entire allegation of the complainant hinges round the said partnership business and when particularly there is a clause in the partnership deed that any dispute between the parties shall be referred to an Arbitrator by appointing one under the Arbitration Act, whose decision shall be final and binding on the parties to which all the partners including the complainant agreed, filing of a complaint petition on flimsy and false allegations against another partner and his son is totally unwarranted.</p><p>6. Taking me into col.6 of the complaint petition of the complainant, learned Counsel for the petitioner pointed out that the alleged occurrence, according to the petitioner, took place on 5.2.2003 which has been mentioned in the said column. But in the said column it is also mentioned that the complainant lodged a report at Golanthara PS regarding the incident on 16.10.2002. He argued vehemently that this is itself is a glaring instance as to how the case is a false and frivolous one initiated to wreck vengeance and when the occurrence itself according to the complainant took place on 5.2.2003, report regarding such occurrence could not have been lodged at the police station on 16.10.2002. Learned counsel also took me through the statements of the other partners of the firm recorded by the I.O. under Section 161, CrPC., who have all stated that the complainant-opposite party No. 2 had dispute relating to the partnership firm with petitioner No. 1 Krushna Chandra Sahu for non-contribution of Rs. l lakh to the firm by complainant-opposite party No. 2. He further took me to the case diary wherein during the investigation of the case the I.O. has categorically mentioned that during the year 2002, due to misunderstanding that prevailed between the parties, the dispute arising out of the partnership firm and the contribution to the same the complainant-opposite party No. 2 reported on 17.10.2002 and 20.1.2003 and petitioner No. 1 Krushna Chandra Sahu had reported on 20.1.2003 and since the allegations related to the partnership firm and both had alleged against each other and no document could be produced to substantiate the allegations the police had made only station diary entries as the dispute was found to be civil nature. Apart from that, the parties became political rivals of each other during the Panchayat and Zilla Parishad elections, although earlier they belonged to one party. Lastly, it was submitted by learned Counsel for the petitioner that the entire episode which has been narrated in the complaint petition is the outcome of the partnership business and if the complainant had any grudge and any doubt regarding misappropriation of partnership fund by the accused petitioner No. l, he could have taken shelter in the appropriate forum by filing civil litigation. Without doing so, he has resorted to criminal prosecution on very flimsy-ground and not only that he has implicated the son of petitioner No. 1 who is an engineering student and prosecuting his study, he submitted.</p><p>7. It is apparent on record that petitioner No. 1 is businessman and it is submitted by learned Counsel for the petitioner that he is an income tax assessee and the allegation that has been brought by the complainant in his complaint petition which was subsequently treated as FIR by order of learned Magistrate is that the petitioners obstructed the complainant on his way while he was proceeding in his motor-cycle, threatened him, dealt pushes and fist blows, criminally intimidated him and took away cash of Rs. 20,000/- from his pocket. On the face of all these earlier disputes between the parties allegations and counter allegations against each other and political rivalry and the other facts that I have discussed in the preceding paragraphs relating to. the report about this incident to the police even before it took place, makes the matter highly suspicious, rather improbable.</p><p>8. Learned Addl. Standing Counsel appearing for the State submitted that enmity being, a double edged weapon and in the instant case when the police has submitted charge-sheet and the learned Magistrate has taken cognizance of the offence basing on the same, the order of cognizance should not be quashed as the truth or otherwise of the matter can be ascertained only after a legitimate trial of the petitioners in the Court of learned Magistrate. Learned counsel for the petitioner, on the other hand, relying on a decision reported in : 1992CriLJ527 (State of Haryana v. Ch. Bhajanlal and Ors.) submitted in the light of the said judgment that in the instant case, the FIR of the complainant, even it is taken on its face value and accepted in its entirety it does not constitute any offence or make out any case against the petitioners. He also submitted that the allegations in the complaint/FIR are so absurd and inherently improbable that on the basis of the same no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion. He vehemently urged that this criminal proceeding even manifestly attended with mala fide and the same is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wrecking vengeance on the accused-petitioners with a view to spite them due to private and personal grudge.</p><p>9. On the admitted factual position and the constant rift between the parties which culminated out of partnership firm and subsequent political rivalry has given rise to this criminal case and the valid object behind this lame prosecution, the very nature of the material on which the structure of the prosecution rests are sufficient for this Court to quash the proceeding in the interest of justice as ends of justice are higher than the ends of mere law though justice has got to be administered according to the laws made by the Legislature. In my view, this is a fit case where the inherent power u/s 482, CrPC should be exercised to quash the proceeding as the entire prosecution case rests on false, frivolous and vexatious allegations and to allow continuance of the proceeding would be sheer misuse of the process of the Court.</p><p>10. In the result, I quash the order of cognizance order dated 19.12.2003 in G.R. Case No. 23 of 2003 pending in the Court of J.M.F.C., Patrapur and so also the criminal proceeding.</p><p>11. The Criminal Misc. Case is accordingly allowed.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '2005(II)OLR793',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'State of Orissa and anr.',
		'sub' => 'Criminal',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'krushna-chandra-sahu-vs-state-orissa'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '535665',
	(int) 1 => 'krushna-chandra-sahu-vs-state-orissa'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/535665/krushna-chandra-sahu-vs-state-orissa'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$caseref = '(State of Haryana v. Ch. Bhajanlal and Ors.<br>'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>A.K. Samantaray, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. In this Criminal Misc. Case under Section 482, Cr.P.C. the petitioners who are father and sort have prayed for quashing of the order of cognizance dated 19.12.2003 in G.R. Case No. 23 of 2003 passed by learned J.M.F.C.. Patrapur (GM). Learned Magistrate took cognizance of the offences under Sections 341, 323, 392, 506/34, IPC on the allegation of opposite party No. 2.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. The prosecution case, as it appears from the complaint petition which was subsequently treated as FIR as per the direction of the learned Magistrate under Section 156(3), CrPC, in short is that the complainant-opposite party No. 2 A. Ranga Rao. petitioner No. 1 Krushna Chandra Sahu, Rajendra Kumar Sahu. Basudev Panda. Pravakar Sabat and Prafulla Kumar Sahu constituted a firm in the name and style of 'Madhupriya Estate'. They also executed a partnership deed on 1.8,1998 and according to the terms of the partnership deed they had to share the capital. It is alleged that petitioner No. 1 Krushna Chandra Sahu did not render any account, income and expenditure of the firm to the complainant-partner A. Ranga Rao, For this act of petitioner No. 1 the relationship between the complainant and the petitioner No. 1 soured. When the complainant insisted for rendering accounts petitioner No. 1 did not give the same and misappropriated the firm's money. It is also alleged that the complainant had reported the matter on 15.10.2002 at Golanthara PS, but the police did not take any action on the matter. It is also alleged in the complaint petition that on 5.2.2003 both the petitioner came in a Motor-cycle, rebuked the complainant, threatened him. dealt fist blows and took away cash of Rs. 20,000/- from his pocket when he was proceeding on the canal road towards Berhampur town. On these allegations a complaint petition was filed alleging further that the complainant had been to the police and the police called him 4-5 times, but ultimately did not take any action. The said complaint petition filed before the learned Magistrate on 17.2.2003 was registered as ICC No. 2/2003 and subsequently the learned Magistrate forwarded the complaint petition to the OIC. Golanthara PS to treat the same as FIR under Section 156(3). CrPC. and to proceed with the same in accordance with law. On receipt of the said complaint from the Court the Golanthara police treated the same as FIR, registered Golanthara PS case No. 98/ 2003 for the offence under Sections 341, 323, 392 and 506/34 IPC and proceeded with the investigation and on completion of the investigation submitted charge-sheet. Although there was no legal material available/collected during the course of the investigation and the learned Magistrate after receipt of the charge-sheet without application of his judicial mind and without considering the backdrop which resulted in the initiation of the case against the petitioners, took cognizance of the offence it is alleged.',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. The salient grounds taken by the petitioners in this application' under Section 482, CrPC to quash the order of cognizance are that there exists dispute of civil nature between the parties arising out of the partnership firm. The complainant-opposite party No. 2 since failed in his attempt to rope in petitioner . No. 1 in another criminal case which he had earlier initiated against him, he has come out with the frivolous complaint to wreck vengeance against the petitioners who are father and son and are in no way involved in the alleged offences.',
	(int) 4 => '<p>4. During the hearing of the petition and also on a perusal of the complaint/FIR and the case diary I come to find that the parties had admittedly started a real estate business and it is also admitted fact that there was a partnership deed executed by the parties to the said partnership firm on 1.8.1998 where this petitioner No. l Krushna Chandra Sahu, A. Ranga Rao, the complainant, Rajendra Kumar Sahu, Basudev Panda, Pravakar Sabat and Prafulla Kumar Sahu were the partners. On a scrutiny of the said partnership deed which contains many clauses regarding the function of the firm, share to be contributed, role which be played by each partner have been specifically mentioned in the said deed. In clause 18 there is specific mention that any dispute or difference arising amongst the partners with respect to the construction or interpretation of the deed or any other matter relating to the partnership affairs shall be referred to arbitration under the provisions of Indian Arbitration Act by appointing Arbitrator.',
	(int) 5 => '<p>5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners argued that since undisputedly there is a partnership firm and the entire allegation of the complainant hinges round the said partnership business and when particularly there is a clause in the partnership deed that any dispute between the parties shall be referred to an Arbitrator by appointing one under the Arbitration Act, whose decision shall be final and binding on the parties to which all the partners including the complainant agreed, filing of a complaint petition on flimsy and false allegations against another partner and his son is totally unwarranted.',
	(int) 6 => '<p>6. Taking me into col.6 of the complaint petition of the complainant, learned Counsel for the petitioner pointed out that the alleged occurrence, according to the petitioner, took place on 5.2.2003 which has been mentioned in the said column. But in the said column it is also mentioned that the complainant lodged a report at Golanthara PS regarding the incident on 16.10.2002. He argued vehemently that this is itself is a glaring instance as to how the case is a false and frivolous one initiated to wreck vengeance and when the occurrence itself according to the complainant took place on 5.2.2003, report regarding such occurrence could not have been lodged at the police station on 16.10.2002. Learned counsel also took me through the statements of the other partners of the firm recorded by the I.O. under Section 161, CrPC., who have all stated that the complainant-opposite party No. 2 had dispute relating to the partnership firm with petitioner No. 1 Krushna Chandra Sahu for non-contribution of Rs. l lakh to the firm by complainant-opposite party No. 2. He further took me to the case diary wherein during the investigation of the case the I.O. has categorically mentioned that during the year 2002, due to misunderstanding that prevailed between the parties, the dispute arising out of the partnership firm and the contribution to the same the complainant-opposite party No. 2 reported on 17.10.2002 and 20.1.2003 and petitioner No. 1 Krushna Chandra Sahu had reported on 20.1.2003 and since the allegations related to the partnership firm and both had alleged against each other and no document could be produced to substantiate the allegations the police had made only station diary entries as the dispute was found to be civil nature. Apart from that, the parties became political rivals of each other during the Panchayat and Zilla Parishad elections, although earlier they belonged to one party. Lastly, it was submitted by learned Counsel for the petitioner that the entire episode which has been narrated in the complaint petition is the outcome of the partnership business and if the complainant had any grudge and any doubt regarding misappropriation of partnership fund by the accused petitioner No. l, he could have taken shelter in the appropriate forum by filing civil litigation. Without doing so, he has resorted to criminal prosecution on very flimsy-ground and not only that he has implicated the son of petitioner No. 1 who is an engineering student and prosecuting his study, he submitted.',
	(int) 7 => '<p>7. It is apparent on record that petitioner No. 1 is businessman and it is submitted by learned Counsel for the petitioner that he is an income tax assessee and the allegation that has been brought by the complainant in his complaint petition which was subsequently treated as FIR by order of learned Magistrate is that the petitioners obstructed the complainant on his way while he was proceeding in his motor-cycle, threatened him, dealt pushes and fist blows, criminally intimidated him and took away cash of Rs. 20,000/- from his pocket. On the face of all these earlier disputes between the parties allegations and counter allegations against each other and political rivalry and the other facts that I have discussed in the preceding paragraphs relating to. the report about this incident to the police even before it took place, makes the matter highly suspicious, rather improbable.',
	(int) 8 => '<p>8. Learned Addl. Standing Counsel appearing for the State submitted that enmity being, a double edged weapon and in the instant case when the police has submitted charge-sheet and the learned Magistrate has taken cognizance of the offence basing on the same, the order of cognizance should not be quashed as the truth or otherwise of the matter can be ascertained only after a legitimate trial of the petitioners in the Court of learned Magistrate. Learned counsel for the petitioner, on the other hand, relying on a decision reported in : 1992CriLJ527 (State of Haryana v. Ch. Bhajanlal and Ors.) submitted in the light of the said judgment that in the instant case, the FIR of the complainant, even it is taken on its face value and accepted in its entirety it does not constitute any offence or make out any case against the petitioners. He also submitted that the allegations in the complaint/FIR are so absurd and inherently improbable that on the basis of the same no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion. He vehemently urged that this criminal proceeding even manifestly attended with mala fide and the same is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wrecking vengeance on the accused-petitioners with a view to spite them due to private and personal grudge.',
	(int) 9 => '<p>9. On the admitted factual position and the constant rift between the parties which culminated out of partnership firm and subsequent political rivalry has given rise to this criminal case and the valid object behind this lame prosecution, the very nature of the material on which the structure of the prosecution rests are sufficient for this Court to quash the proceeding in the interest of justice as ends of justice are higher than the ends of mere law though justice has got to be administered according to the laws made by the Legislature. In my view, this is a fit case where the inherent power u/s 482, CrPC should be exercised to quash the proceeding as the entire prosecution case rests on false, frivolous and vexatious allegations and to allow continuance of the proceeding would be sheer misuse of the process of the Court.',
	(int) 10 => '<p>10. In the result, I quash the order of cognizance order dated 19.12.2003 in G.R. Case No. 23 of 2003 pending in the Court of J.M.F.C., Patrapur and so also the criminal proceeding.',
	(int) 11 => '<p>11. The Criminal Misc. Case is accordingly allowed.<p>',
	(int) 12 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 13
$i = (int) 12
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

Subject	Criminal
Court	Orissa High Court
Decided On	Oct-07-2005
Case Number	Crl. Misc. Case No. 1814 of 2004
Judge	A.K. Samantaray, J.
Reported in	2005(II)OLR793
Acts	Arbitration Act; Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1973 - Sections 156(3), 161 and 482; Indian Penal Code (IPC) - Sections 34, 323, 341, 392 and 506
Appellant	Krushna Chandra Sahu and anr.
Respondent	State of Orissa and anr.
Appellant Advocate	R.K. Nayak,;P.C. Jena and;S.P. Dash, Advs.
Respondent Advocate	Addl. Standing Counsel for O.P. No. 1 and; R.K. Nanda, Adv. for O.P. No. 2
Cases Referred	(State of Haryana v. Ch. Bhajanlal and Ors.

Krushna Chandra Sahu and anr. Vs. State of Orissa and anr. - Court Judgment