Court’s Decision
The Orissa High Court allowed the petition in part by quashing the cognizance order dated 22.12.2022 passed by the learned S.D.J.M., Bhubaneswar, in CT Case No. 6777 of 2022, only insofar as it related to Petitioner No. 2. The Court held that the continuation of proceedings against her would amount to abuse of the process of law due to absence of any specific allegation or overt act in the FIR or supporting statements. However, the Court refused to quash the proceedings against Petitioner No. 1, who was specifically named and implicated in the FIR, leaving her to pursue remedies at the stage of framing of charge or discharge.
Facts
The case stems from an FIR lodged on 08.11.2022 by a sanitation worker employed by the Bhubaneswar Municipal Corporation. The informant alleged that on 05.11.2022, one individual abused her for not wearing a prescribed uniform and spat on her in front of her colleagues. On 07.11.2022, the petitioners allegedly visited the worksite, threatened the workers for having reported the co-accused, recorded videos, and threatened them with removal from service. Based on the complaint, a charge sheet was filed on 17.12.2022 for offences under Sections 341, 294, 509, 355, 506, and 34 of the Indian Penal Code. Cognizance was taken by the Magistrate on 22.12.2022, prompting the present petition under Section 482 CrPC.
Issues
- Whether the cognizance taken by the Magistrate against both petitioners is justified in law.
- Whether the FIR and materials on record disclose a prima facie case against both petitioners or not.
- Whether continuation of proceedings against Petitioner No. 2 amounts to abuse of process.
Petitioners’ Arguments
Counsel for the petitioners contended that the FIR lacked specific allegations to justify invoking Sections 341, 294, 509, 355, 506, and 34 IPC. It was argued that the petitioners were falsely implicated due to prior animosity. The statements recorded under Section 161 CrPC allegedly did not disclose any overt act by the petitioners. They claimed the charge sheet was mechanically submitted without proper investigation and that the Magistrate took cognizance without applying judicial mind.
Respondent’s Arguments
The State opposed the quashing plea, asserting that the FIR and 161 CrPC statements prima facie disclosed that both petitioners accompanied the main accused and threatened the complainant and co-workers. It was argued that at the cognizance stage, only a prima facie case is required. The learned S.D.J.M., it was contended, rightly took cognizance based on materials in the charge sheet.
Analysis of the Law
The Court reiterated that under Section 482 CrPC, the High Court has the inherent power to intervene where criminal proceedings are initiated without any foundational basis or to prevent abuse of process. It observed that the power must be exercised sparingly and with caution.
In examining the allegations, the Court noted that the first incident on 05.11.2022 involved a co-accused and did not concern either petitioner. Regarding the second incident on 07.11.2022, Petitioner No. 1 was specifically named in the FIR for allegedly threatening the informant and other workers. In contrast, Petitioner No. 2’s name did not appear in the narrative part of the FIR, nor was her presence independently established through any of the 161 CrPC statements.
Precedent Analysis
The Court relied heavily on the landmark decision of the Supreme Court in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335, which enumerated categories of cases where the High Court may exercise its power under Section 482 CrPC. Particularly, it cited:
- Cases where allegations are vague or inherently improbable.
- Where allegations do not disclose any offence.
- Where proceedings are malicious or actuated by ulterior motives.
Applying these principles, the Court found Petitioner No. 2’s case squarely within the Bhajan Lal framework for quashing.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court found that Petitioner No. 1 was directly named and implicated in the FIR and hence must face trial. As for Petitioner No. 2, the Court held:
“The inclusion of her name appears to be omnibus in nature, lacking any specific allegation or overt act attributed to her. Such vague and generalised accusations, in the absence of supporting material, do not satisfy the threshold for sustaining criminal prosecution.”
The Court held that such proceedings, if allowed to continue, would amount to abuse of the process of law.
Conclusion
The Court partially allowed the petition. It quashed the cognizance order dated 22.12.2022 only as it related to Petitioner No. 2, stating that no prima facie case was made out against her. However, it declined to interfere in the proceedings against Petitioner No. 1, who was directed to raise her defences at the appropriate stage in accordance with law.
Implications
This judgment underscores the importance of judicial scrutiny at the threshold stage under Section 482 CrPC. It affirms that mere naming of an individual in the charge sheet or FIR, without specific or overt allegations, does not justify criminal prosecution. The Court also reaffirmed that quashing is warranted where proceedings are based on omnibus and vague accusations lacking evidentiary foundation.
Brief on Judgments Referred
State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal (1992 Supp (1) SCC 335) – The Court relied on the seven categories laid down in this landmark case where power under Section 482 CrPC could be exercised to quash proceedings. Particularly relevant were the categories dealing with vague allegations, absence of offence, and mechanical prosecution.
FAQs
1. Can criminal proceedings be quashed if the FIR does not name the accused specifically?
Yes, if the FIR and supporting materials do not disclose any specific role or overt act against the accused, proceedings may be quashed as an abuse of process.
2. What is the standard for quashing under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code?
The power is to be exercised sparingly and only when the allegations are absurd, vague, or inherently improbable, or when no offence is made out even prima facie.
3. What if only one co-accused is directly implicated in the FIR?
The Court can quash proceedings only against the co-accused who is not named or involved with specificity, while allowing proceedings to continue against the other.
