Enmity Is A Double-Edged Sword: Orissa HC Refuses To Quash Order, Holds Malicious Intent To Be Decided In Trial

The Orissa High Court while denying to quash an impugned order of the Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate as the grounds raised by the petitioner were found to be purely factual, thereby needing determination. The Court further observed that a prima facie case was made out for inquiry and trial where the SDJM has to examine the defense as to malicious prosecution.

"As to the enmity between the parties, law is well settled that it is always a double edged weapon. On account of enmity, there is no doubt possibility of levying false and malicious prosecution. But then, at the same time, real occurrences do take place due to such enmity. Whether in the present case, due to such personal enmity, a false F.I.R. was lodged by opposite party No.2 or otherwise notwithstanding filing of the chargesheet shall have to be tested on the floor of the Court", Justice R.K. Pattanaik.

Advocate Anirudha Das appeared for the petitioner, while Advocate Tapas Kumar Praharaj appeared for the respondent.

As per the factual matrix of the case, as per the FIR, the informant had requested the Headmaster-petitioner to carry out the correction in the SLC of her daughter with regard to the name of her father and in that process, she was allegedly misbehaved with and assaulted. Furthermore, she had also alleged abuse based on her caste. While the petitioner alleged an active involvement of some of the staff of the school including the Managing Committee in creating nuisance for him.

The petitioner thus contended that it was a malicious prosecution done at the behest of the Managing Committee.

Counsel for the petitioner while relying on Nalini Acharya @Naliniprava Acharya & Others v. State of Odisha and Another (2022) 87 OCR 210 submitted that the offence under Section 3(x) SC& ST (PoA) is not made out since the incident did not occur in public place but inside the school premises. The petitioner therefore, challenged the order on the grounds inter alia that the same is untenable as he was a victim of malicious prosecution.

However, the Court was of the opinion that whether an offence under Section 3(x) SC & ST (PoA) has been committed by the petitioner is again a matter of examination and scrutiny during trial.

The bench therefore, noted, "...No doubt, the petitioner filed a complaint for the same incident and alleged malicious prosecution against opposite party No.2. However having regard to the facts on record, the Court is of the conclusion that whether the allegations to be true or false should be left to the decision of the learned court below. The claim of malicious prosecution of the petitioner did not find favour with as the local police submitted the chargesheet without whispering anything about the same. So therefore, all such defense shall have to be examined by the trial court considering the evidence received from both the sides".

The bench thereby refusing to quash the impugned order, observed, "To sum up, the Court, in the facts and circumstances of the case, considering the evidence received during investigation and that opposite party No. 2 was medically examined on police requisition and she said to have received a bruise on the forehead allegedly on account of the assault which she claimed against the petitioner, a prima facie case is made out for enquiry and trial leaving the learned court below to examine the defense as to malicious prosecution. Having said that, the Court is not inclined to quash the impugned order under Anneuxre-5 as it has been pleaded for by the petitioner since the grounds raised are purely factual which needs determination during and in course of trial".

Cause Title: Siba Sankar Mohanty v. State of Odisha and Anr.

Click here to read/download the Judgment