IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK CRA No. 68 of 1997 P.V. Suryanarayan Rao …. Appellant(s) None -versus- Y. Someswar Rao & another …. Respondent(s) Mr. A. Mohanty, ASC CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SIBO SANKAR MISHRA Order No. ORDER 23.07.2026 14. 1. The present appeal is arising out of an order dated 27.11.1996 passed by the learned SDJM, Berhampur in ICC No. 18/93 (T.A. No.2160/25.09.1993). 2. It appears on record that on 03.04.1993 the appellant filed a complaint under Section 200 Cr.P.C. against the accused, inter alia, making the following allegations:- (iii) The accused, who is a brahmin, came to Berhampur while he was aged about 20 years from Rajmundry to make out his livelihood at Berhampur. His good days brought him to the notice of Dr. P.V. Jagannath Rao, who provided him a job at the temple and gradually he became a man of trust, and was given a power of attorney on 4-12-86 to look after his litigations. Such a favour shown to him by the father of the complainant, appeared to have turned his head, and he began to take advantage of this situation to fill up his pockets. When such facts came to the notice of Dr. P. V. Jagannath Rao, cancelled the power of attorney on 6-11-90, given to the accused and published a general notice in the local newspaper warning all concerned not to have any dealings with the accused effecting his properties. The accused was not only dismissed from service, but was also turned out from the house where he had been allowed to stay. iv) That such a treatment meted out to the accused by late Dr. Rao, made the accused revengeful and having come in contact with such vast properties of Dr. Rao, and having made himself acquainted with persons during the period of his management of the properties, he could gather evil associates and prepared himself with their help to earn unlawful gains by misuse of the trust, which had once been given to him and was subsequently dislodged from it. v) It has recently come to light, that the accused by impersonating and posing himself as the adopted son of late Dr. P. V. Jagannath Rao, is fraudulently inducing others to take documents of title for the different items of properties of late Dr. Rao, of which the complainant is the exclusive owner in possession. The accused by such acts is receiving cash considerations for his own benefit. The accused is being able to trap others into such transaction by creating fraudulent documents for paltry considerations which were just a fraction of the actual market value of the properties concerned. vi) Many of such documents are as yet unregistered and in the preparatory stage except one which has been registered by the accused in favour of one Bhagaban Sahu of village Lathi. When the complainant could come to know of this registration, he immediately filed a suit in T. S. 53/92 in the court of the Munsif, Berhampur, for a permanent injunction to restrain the accused from repeating such acts.” 3. The learned trial court, vide order dated 25.09.1993, has taken cognizance of offence under Section 465 of IPC and issued summons to the accused respondent for 18.12.1993. The summons remained unserved for a long period. The trial court proceeding reveals that although repeated attempts were made, but the summons could not be served. The complaint suffered twenty-five adjournments on that count alone stretching for more than two years. Eventually, on 27.11.1996, the impugned order was passed. Perusal of the impugned judgment reveals that the trial court dropped the proceeding against the accused persons relying upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court passed in the matter of “Common Cause” a registered society through its Director vrs. Union of India, reported in AIR 1996 SC 1619. The trial court while dropping the complaint, inter alia, observed as under:- “3. At the time of hearing of the petition, it is submitted by the learned Advocate for the complainant that in Page-6 at para 2(b) in their judgment, the Hon'ble Court has given direction that where the cases pending in Criminal Court for more than 2 years under I.P.C. or any other law for the time being law in force are compoundable with permission of the Court and is in such cases trial have still not commenced, the Criminal Court shall, after hearing of the Public Prosecutor and other parties represented before it or their advocates discharged or acquit the accused as the case may be and close such cases and as the offence U/8 465 (PC is not compoundable in nature the directions given by the Hon'ble Apex Court are not applicable in this case. But I find that there is no force in the said contention because in paragraph 2(f) of the judgment mentioned above, it has been clearly mentioned by the Hon'ble Court that "Where the cases pending in Criminal Courts under I.P.C. or any other law for the time being in force are punishable with imprisonment up to three years, with or without fine, and if such pendency is for more than two years and if in such cases trial have still not commenced, the Criminal Court shall discharge or acquit the accused as the case may be, and close such cases". This is a case U/s 465 I.P.C. which is punishable with imprisonment for two years and fine. In this case summon was issued to the accused on 23.9.93 and the case is pending for more than 2 years and the trial of the case has not yet been commenced. Hence, as per the direction of the Hon'ble Court given in paragraph 2(f) this case is to be closed. Accordingly the accused is acquitted in this case and the case is closed.” This court finds no legal infirmity or perversity in the said order warranting interference. 4. This appeal has been pending since 1997. None has appeared for the appellant today and also on the preceding dates of hearing. 5. In view of the aforementioned, the appeal stands dismissed. Ashok ( S.S. Mishra) Judge MOHAPATRA