Nominal Index

Jaga Sarabu v. State of Orissa & Anr., 2022 LiveLaw (Ori) 157

Bijaya Manjari Satpathy v. State of Orissa & Ors., 2022 LiveLaw (Ori) 158

Project Officer, Bharatpur Open Cast Project of Mahanadi Coalfields Ltd. v. Darsani Kumar Sahoo & Anr., 2022 LiveLaw (Ori) 159

Kalandi Charan Barik v. State of Odisha & Ors., 2022 LiveLaw (Ori) 160

JB v. State of Odisha & Ors., 2022 LiveLaw (Ori) 161

Manoj Kumar Agarwal v. State of Odisha, 2022 LiveLaw (Ori) 162

Bandhana Toppo v. State of Odisha & Ors., 2022 LiveLaw (Ori) 163

Suraj Bahadur & Anr. v. State of Odisha, 2022 LiveLaw (Ori) 164

Santanu Kumar Takri v. Gangadhar Nanda, 2022 LiveLaw (Ori) 165

Surendra Kumar Mishra v. State of Orissa & Anr., 2022 LiveLaw (Ori) 166

Brahmananda Sahu v. State of Orissa (Vigilance), 2022 LiveLaw (Ori) 167

Judgments/Orders Reported:

498A IPC Case Can't Be Quashed Under Section 482 CrPC Merely Because Family Court Called Marriage Invalid In Maintenance Proceedings: Orissa HC

Case Title: Jaga Sarabu v. State of Orissa & Anr.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ori) 157

The High Court held that charge under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code cannot be quashed in exercise of jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC against a husband merely because Family Court while deciding an application for maintenance under Section 125 CrPC has given a finding that she is not his wife. While refusing to quash an order taking cognizance under Section 498-A against the petitioner, Justice Gourishankar Satapathy said:

"…it would not be proper for a Court to undertake hair splitting scrutiny of materials on record in a proceeding under section 482 of Cr.P.C. to conclude that the proceeding under section 498-A of IPC is not maintainable for want of valid marriage which would not only encourage harassment of women but also demoralizes them."

[S. 138 NI Act] Person In Charge Of Trust Can't Be Arraigned As Accused Without Impleading The Trust Itself: Orissa High Court

Case Title: Bijaya Manjari Satpathy v. State of Orissa & Ors.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ori) 158

A Single Judge Bench of Justice Gourishankar Satapathy held that a person in charge of a 'Trust' cannot be impleaded as an accused for dishonour of cheque, punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, if the 'Trust' itself is not arraigned as a party as per the mandate of Section 141 of the Act. Section 141 prescribes liabilities of companies for dishonour of cheques.

Writ Of Certiorari Can't Be Issued To Examine Adequacy Of Evidence Adduced Before Lower Court/Tribunal: Orissa High Court Reiterates

Case Title: Project Officer, Bharatpur Open Cast Project of Mahanadi Coalfields Ltd. v. Darsani Kumar Sahoo & Anr.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ori) 159

A Division Bench of Justices Arindam Sinha and Sanjay Kumar Mishra clarified that a proceeding cannot be drawn for issuance of the writ of certiorari merely to challenge a finding of fact recorded by a Lower Court/Tribunal, on the ground that the material evidence adduced before the forum was 'insufficient' to sustain the finding. While placing reliance on the ruling of the Supreme Court in Syed Yakoob v. Radhakrishnan, the Court noted:

"…a writ of Certiorari can be issued if it is shown that in recording the said finding, the Tribunal had erroneously refused to admit admissible and material evidence, or had erroneously admitted inadmissible evidence, which has influenced the impugned finding. Similarly, if a finding of fact is based on no evidence, that would be regarded as an error of law, which can be corrected by a writ of Certiorari. The Court went on to say further that a finding of fact recorded by the Tribunal cannot be challenged in proceedings for a writ of Certiorari on the ground that the relevant and material evidence adduced before the Tribunal was insufficient or inadequate to sustain the impugned finding."

Merit List Not A Reservoir For Future Appointments: Orissa High Court Dismisses Plea Filed With 15 Yrs Delay

Case Title: Kalandi Charan Barik v. State of Odisha & Ors.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ori) 160

A Single Judge Bench of Justice Sangam Kumar Sahoo held that a 'select/merit list' cannot be deemed to be a 'reservoir' for the purpose of appointments. While denying appointment to a candidate who approached the Court, 15 years after publication of the select list, the Court placed reliance on the following observations made by the Supreme Court in State of Orissa & Anr. v. Rajkishore Nanda & Ors.:

"A select list cannot be treated as a reservoir for the purpose of appointments, that vacancy can be filled up taking the names from that list as and when it is so required. It is the settled legal proposition that no relief can be granted to the candidate if he approaches the Court after expiry of the select list. If the selection process is over, select list has expired and appointments had been made, no relief can be granted by the Court at a belated stage."

"Institutional Lethargy Has Crept Into Police Stations": Orissa High Court Issues Guidelines For Compulsory Registration Of FIRs

Case Title: JB v. State of Odisha & Ors.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ori) 161

A Single Judge Bench of Dr. Justice Sanjeeb Kumar Panigrahi issued a slew of instructions/guidelines to the Director General of Police, Odisha (DGP) for compulsory registration of First Information Reports (FIRs), requiring him to forward the same to all the police stations of the State. Expressing disappointment over frequent cases of non-registration of FIRs by police officers, the Court issued the following six instructions:

"a) Whenever a person comes to the Police Station with a complaint, the Officer posted at the Police Station shall compulsorily receive the complaint and endorse the complaint by way of a receipt or by way of stamp acknowledging the said receipt at that Police Station with time and date. The Police Officer shall further insist a photo copy of the said complaint to be given back to the complainant.

b) While a prescribed format is not necessary, it is essential that the In-charge of the Police Station shall indicate the minimum information required to substantiate a complaint and shall suggest what supporting documents are relevant and can add weight to the complaint.

c) The concerned official must be courteous to the complainant who approaches to the Police station and furnish a pen and a paper to the complainant, on request.

d) The complainant may also be given a comfortable space to sit and write the complaint.

e) If the person is illiterate, the complaint must be dictated by the complainant to the officer-in-charge who shall reduce the same in writing and dictate it to the complainant before it is signed and stamped by the officer.

f) A copy (photo-copy) of the FIR filed must be returned to the complainant by the concerned officer free of cost."

S. 173(8) CrPC | Magistrate Not Barred To Order Further Investigation After Taking Cognizance, Until Trial Commences: Orissa HC Reiterates

Case Title: Manoj Kumar Agarwal v. State of Odisha

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ori) 162

A Single Judge Bench of Chief Justice Dr. S. Muralidhar reiterated that the power of Judicial Magistrates to order further investigation under Section 173(8) of the Code of Criminal Procedure is not taken away only because cognizance was taken of an offence. While clarifying the position of law, it placed reliance on 2019's three-judge bench judgment of the Apex Court in Vinubhai Haribhai Malaviya v. The State of Gujarat, wherein after overruling certain previous contradictory judgments, the Court held,

“To ensure that a "proper investigation" takes place in the sense of a fair and just investigation by the police - which such Magistrate is to supervise - Article 21 of the Constitution of India mandates that all powers necessary, which may also be incidental or implied, are available to the Magistrate to ensure a proper investigation which, without doubt, would include the ordering of further investigation after a report is received by him under Section 173(2); and which power would continue to enure in such Magistrate at all stages of the criminal proceedings until the trial itself commences.”

Orissa High Court Halts Field Posting Of Police Officer Who Refused To Register FIR In Alleged Murder Case, Orders Sensitization Training

Case Title: Bandhana Toppo v. State of Odisha & Ors.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ori) 163

In a strong action against police inaction and institutional lethargy in registering First Information Report (FIR) in a case involving serious charge like murder, the Orissa High Court directed 'sensitization training' for an Inspector-In-Charge (IIC) in State's Police Academy. It also directed the Commissioner of Police, Bhubaneswar to desist from assigning any 'field posting' to the officer for the next one year. While condemning the acts of the said police officer, the Single Judge Bench of Dr. Justice Sanjeeb Kumar Panigrahi sternly observed,

"The inaction shown by the police is deplored. If there is even a shred of truth in the allegations made herein, such infamy by the police deserves strong condemnation. The core mission of the police is to protect citizens from the undesirable elements of society. But if its actions were to leave the community more vulnerable to criminal victimization, it would undermine the popular confidence in law enforcement."

Orissa High Court Criticizes Special Judge For Unnecessary Citations, Says Precedents Cannot Be Applied Mechanically

Case Title: Suraj Bahadur & Anr. v. State of Odisha

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ori) 164

The Orissa High Court criticised a Special NDPS Judge for mechanical reference to numerous case laws, without there being any relevance of those authorities to the facts and circumstances of the case at hand. While disapproving the manner in which the Special Judge appreciated the evidence on record, a Single Judge Bench of Justice Sashikanta Mishra observed,

"Reading of the impugned judgment reveals that learned Special Judge appears to have made a superficial appreciation of the evidence thereby leaving out the significant omission therein. This Court further observes that learned Special Judge has referred to numerous decisions (27 to be precise). It goes without saying that the case laws are to be applied only to the facts and circumstances of the case at hand and not to be applied mechanically."

‘Court Does Not Find It Offensive’: Orissa High Court On Veterinarian’s Statement About Demand Of Indian Cow Meat Abroad

Case Title: Santanu Kumar Takri v. Gangadhar Nanda

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ori) 165

The Orissa High Court set aside an order of an ADJ-cum-Special Judge (Vigilance) who had ordered the Court below to re-record statements of complainant and witnesses in a complaint case filed against a Chief District Veterinary Officer for citing demand of Indian cow and bull meats abroad while delivering a speech in an event organised for deliberating on the issues of prevention of cruelty to animals. While allowing the petition, a Single Judge Bench of Justice Radha Krishna Pattanaik held,

“In the present case, the petitioner was a Government servant and he participated in a meeting and delivered a speech which was with regard to eating habits of the Indians and on other issues. The petitioner attended the said function as the Chief District Veterinary Officer, Koraput and according to the learned SDJM, Koraput, he had been invited there in his official capacity and the alleged speech was delivered which was without any criminal intent, rather, it was based on his experience and essentially to be an opinion shared or view expressed by him in good faith.”

Utterance Of Abuse By Taking Name Of Victim's Caste Not An Offence Under S 3(1)(x) SC/ST Act Unless Insult, Intimidation Intended: Orissa High Court

Case Title: Surendra Kumar Mishra v. State of Orissa & Anr.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ori) 166

The Court reiterated that a charge under Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, as was before the 2016 amendment, shall not be attracted merely because the accused uttered the name of victim's caste, unless it is done with an intention to insult or intimidate and to humiliate him for being a member of the SC or ST community. While quashing an order taking cognizance under the said provision, a Single Judge Bench of Justice Radha Krishna Pattanaik relied on Supreme Court's decision in Hitesh Verma v. The State of Uttarakhand and Another and said:

“So having regard to the intent and purpose of the law in place meant to protect the statutory and constitutional rights of the marginalized sections of the society, any such offence committed by a person other than a SC or ST must have to have the requisite intention to insult and intimidate his counterpart for him to be from a backward class because of his caste. So it has to be held that all insults or intimidation do not make out an offence under the Act unless it is directed against the person on account of his caste.”

Entire Proceedings Can’t Be Quashed In Corruption Case Just Because Informant Turned Hostile At Investigation Stage: Orissa High Court

Case Title: Brahmananda Sahu v. State of Orissa (Vigilance)

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ori) 167

The High Court held that entire proceedings cannot be set aside in a corruption case merely because the informant, who participated in the trap in connection with the demand of bribe, did not support the prosecution case during investigation. While rejecting a petition filed for quashing such a case, Single Judge Bench of Justice Radha Krishna Pattanaik said:

“No doubt the essential ingredients of demand and acceptance shall have to be established to bring home the charge but even when a material witness does not support the prosecution after being a part of the alleged trap at whose instance it was laid, the Court is of the considered view that notwithstanding his hostile testimony during investigation, the whole of the evidence cannot be discarded.”

Other Important Developments

Explore Possibility Of Registering e-FIRs, Especially In Cases Of Crimes Against Women: Orissa High Court Directs DGP

Case Title: JP v. State of Odisha & Ors.

Case No.: CRLMP No. 2302 of 2022

In an important development, the Court directed the Director General of Police, Odisha (DGP) to explore the possibility for registration of 'e-First Information Reports (e-FIRs)' in the State. A Single Judge Bench of Dr. Justice Sanjeeb Kumar Panigrahi was hearing a criminal miscellaneous petition filed by a woman, who approached the High Court for non-registration of FIR based on her complaint. Counsel for the State submitted that in the meantime the said complaint has been registered as an FIR. Therefore, the Court found the grievance of the petitioner to have been redressed. However, having regard to the increasing cases of crimes against women and institutional lethargy in quick registration of FIRs, the Court directed:

"The Director General of Police, Odisha is directed to explore the possibility of registration of e-F.I.R. in the State. The registration of e-F.I.R. especially in cases of crimes against women will go to a long way in combating crimes against women and ensure better women safety and security. He is also directed to file the reply before this Court within fifteen days regarding possibility of having a system of registration of e-F.I.R. in the State."

No Complete Proposal From State Govt To Setup New Bench Of Orissa High Court: Law Minister Kiren Rijiju

While answering a question raised by Saptagiri Sankar Ulaka, Lok Sabha MP from Odisha's Koraput, the Union Law Minister Kiren Rijiju clarified that presently there is no 'complete proposal' from the Government of Odisha to establish a new Bench of the Orissa High Court pending with the Central Government. Mr. Ulaka had queried the details of demands, requests and proposals received from various States including Odisha for setting up of new Benches. He particularly asked if any such proposal is pending with the Union Government for new High Court Benches in the undivided district of Koraput and the Western Odisha.

Massive Clashes Erupt Between Police & Lawyers In Odisha's Sambalpur Over Demand Of High Court Bench

Massive clashes erupted between lawyers and police over the demand to establish a permanent Bench of the Orissa High Court at Sambalpur, a western district of Odisha. The District Bar Association, Sambalpur called for a protest under the name 'Satyagraha'. Hundreds of lawyers supported by civilians started a protest this morning, also to oppose the allegedly arbitrary actions of the Bar Council of India and the Odisha State Bar Council. Effigies of Judges were reportedly burnt as a sign of discord.

CJI DY Chandrachud Inaugurates 10 District Court Digitization Hubs In Odisha; Lauds E-Initiatives Of Orissa HC

Chief Justice of India Dr Justice D.Y. Chandrachud virtually inaugurated District Court Digitization Hubs (DCDH) in 10 districts of Odisha, in the presence of Dr. Justice S. Muralidhar, Chief Justice of Orissa High Court. Justice D. Dash, Chairman and the members of the Record Room Digitization Centre (RRDC) Committee of the High Court were present on the occasion. The District Judges, Judicial Officers, Office Bearers of the Bar Associations and the officials of the district administration attended the event through virtual mode. After getting satisfying results from the 4 DCDCs, the High Court decided to upgrade these Centres into District Court Digitization Hubs (DCDH). The DCDHs were inaugurated in 10 more Districts namely Angul, Bhadrak, Jharsuguda, Kalahandi, Keonjhar, Koraput, Malkangiri, Mayurbhanj, Nayagarh and Sonepur. These hubs will cover digitization works of all the 30 districts of the state.

My Chambers Are Almost Paperless, I Don't Receive Any Physical Files: CJI DY Chandrachud Pushes For Digitizing Court Records, E-Filing

Chief Justice of India Dr. Justice D.Y. Chandrachud revealed that his chambers are almost paperless since all his notes and case files are received in digital format. "I don't receive any physical files from Courts. My Law Clerks send me all notes digitally and my chambers is almost paperless," he said.

The CJI was delivering his inaugural speech at the opening of District Court Digitization Hubs (DCDH) in 10 districts of Odisha in virtual mode in the presence of Dr. Justice S. Muralidhar, Chief Justice of Orissa High Court and the Judges of High Court. Highlighting another benefit of digitizing judicial records, he said that it can make the justice-delivery system more efficient. In the past, a lot of time was spent on tasks such as searching for and organising physical files. By digitizing these records, we can make it much easier to search for and organise information, which save time and reduce the workload on legal professionals.

Judges Are Ahead In Carrying Out Paperless Courts; Lawyers Have To Be Brought On Board: Orissa High Court CJ Muralidhar

10 numbers of District Court Digitization Hubs (DCDHs) were virtually inaugurated in Odisha by the Chief Justice of India Dr. Justice DY Chandrachud. The event was attended by the Chief Justice of the Orissa High Court Dr. Justice S. Muralidhar, other puisne Judges of the High Court and Judicial Officers of the State. While speaking on the occasion, Justice Muralidhar said that Judges are ahead in carrying out the goals of paperless Courts, whereas lawyers have to be brought on board. He acknowledged the difficulties in adapting to the technological advancements and expressed hope that people will adapt to it within some time. He stressed on the importance of technology and said,

"Technology has made so many things possible. Even today's event where we have 30 District Courts, the District Judges, Judicial Officers from various cadres of Odisha joining us online for this inauguration ceremony… All of this taking place through technological possibilities. [It] tells us that technology can be harnessed to improve working of the Courts, the efficiency of the system as a whole and ultimately, all of this is to deliver better quality justice to the people."

Orissa High Court Confers Senior Designation On Two Advocates

The High Court conferred 'senior designation' on two advocates while exercising its authority under Section 16 of the Advocates Act, 1961 read with Rule 7(1) of the High Court of Orissa (Designation of Senior Advocate) Rules, 2019. The advocates who are designated are:

1. Soura Chandra Mohapatra

2. Siddhartha Ray

Orissa High Court Orders Survey To Identify Fake Medical Practitioners

Case Title: Odisha State Legal Services Authority v. State of Odisha & Ors.

Case No.: W.P.(C) No. 22970 of 2019

The Court ordered the State Government to undertake a survey to ascertain as to whether every person practising the medical profession has valid qualification. The order came as a corollary to the shocking revelation made by the World Bank which found in one of its surveys that only 51% of all doctors are qualified to practise. The Division Bench of Chief Justice Dr. S. Muralidhar and Dr. Justice Sanjeeb Kumar Panigrahi ordered,

"A direction is issued to the Addl. Chief Secretary to Government, Health and Family Welfare Department, to come up with a comprehensive plan under which a survey will be undertaken to ascertain that every allopathic doctor practising in Odisha possesses the proper and relevant qualification. Such a survey should be undertaken in a time bound manner and be concluded preferably within a period of six months."