Orissa High Court Monthly Digest: December 2022

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...

Orissa High Court Monthly Digest: December 2022

Jyoti Prakash Dutta

Tags