Criminal Law Is Not a Tool to Avenge Property Disputes — Orissa High Court Sets Aside Cognizance in Alleged Murder Based on Protest Petition

“Mechanical Cognizance Without Prima Facie Material in 302 IPC Case Is a Travesty of Justice — Magistrate Cannot Turn a Blind Eye to Police Findings Declaring Death as Natural”— in a crucial judgment that reiterates the importance of judicial application of mind before initiating criminal trials in grave offences, the Orissa High Court quashed the order of cognizance passed by the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate (SDJM), Birmaharajpur in a case where murder was alleged purely based on suspicions and familial property disputes, despite clear police findings ruling out foul play.

Justice Chittaranjan Dash stated: “A court is not to engage itself for formality's sake in an enquiry under Section 202 Cr.P.C., especially where murder is alleged… No person should be subjected to criminal prosecution merely on the basis of suspicion in the absence of essential mens rea.”

Family Dispute Turns into Murder Allegation—Despite Police Finding “Mistake of Fact”

The case originated from the death of one Bishnupriya Sahu, a paralysed, bedridden woman who had been living under the care of her nephew, Petitioner No. 1, since her brother (Opposite Party No. 2) had allegedly abandoned her. She died on 04.08.2013, and following standard procedure, the petitioner had informed the local Sarpanch and police, leading to Subalaya P.S. U.D. Case No. 1 of 2013 and a post-mortem examination, which concluded that her death was natural due to cardiac arrest.

Despite the closure of the case as “mistake of fact” after thorough police investigation and submission of the final report in 2015, Opposite Party No. 2 filed a protest petition, converting it into a private complaint against the petitioner and his entire family, alleging murder and property grabbing.

“From Natural Death to 302 IPC Without Fresh Evidence? This Is Abuse of Process”—Court Condemns Vague Allegations in Protest Petitions

The High Court noted that: “The magistrate has passed a cryptic and mechanical order of cognizance under Sections 302, 364, 379 IPC and other serious offences, without identifying any prima facie material that could contradict the post-mortem or police findings.”

The complaint made by the deceased’s brother accused the petitioner of kidnapping and murdering her to usurp her property, but offered no new medical or forensic material—only oral statements alleging suspicion.

Referring to Pepsi Foods Ltd. v. Special Judicial Magistrate (1998) 5 SCC 749, the Court emphasized:

“Summoning an accused in a criminal case is a serious matter… The Magistrate must reflect that he has applied his mind to the facts and law and not act as a silent spectator.”

“Section 202 CrPC Inquiry Is Not a Rubber Stamp”—Court Warns Against Casual Approach in Grave Offences Like Murder

The Court strongly criticized the trial magistrate for accepting the protest petition at face value without proper scrutiny of the prior investigation and medical evidence. It referred to its own decision in Bichitrananda Paramanik v. State of Odisha:

“The Magistrate failed to conduct any detailed enquiry under Section 202 Cr.P.C. to unearth the proximate cause of death… Merely accepting oral testimony and jumping to a conclusion of murder is indefensible.”

It further quoted the Supreme Court in Vinubhai Haribhai Malaviya v. State of Gujarat (2019) 17 SCC 1:

“The ultimate aim of all investigation and inquiry is to ensure that those who have actually committed a crime are correctly booked, and those who have not, are not unnecessarily dragged into trial… This is the minimal safeguard under Article 21.”

“Magistrate's Order Suffers From Non-Application of Mind”—Court Remands for Fresh Consideration

The Court noted that the magistrate did not address the medical evidence, the police inquiry, or the deceased’s health condition, and merely took cognizance on the basis of oral allegations and conjectures, without any fresh incriminating material.

Justice Dash ruled: “In the absence of careful judicial consideration, the impugned order suffers from non-application of mind and cannot be sustained in law.”

Consequently, the cognizance order in I.C.C. Case No. 15 of 2016 was set aside, and the matter was remitted back to the trial court for fresh application of mind in accordance with the observations made by the High Court.

Conclusion: Cognizance Cannot Be a Mechanical Ritual—Judicial Scrutiny Is the First Line of Safeguard Against Malicious Prosecution

This judgment reinforces the role of the judiciary as a safeguard against misuse of the criminal justice system to settle personal scores or harass relatives in family disputes. It stands as a powerful caution against bypassing police findings and turning Section 202 CrPC proceedings into a mere formality.

Date of Decision: 10 September 2025