The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK CRLMC No.7 OF 2024 Suresh Kumar Sharma & Others …. Petitioner(s) Mr. Suresh Tripathy, Advocate -versus- State of Odisha & Another …. Opposite Party(s) Mr. P.K. Maharaj, ASC CORAM: JUSTICE SIBO SANKAR MISHRA
Decision
ORDER 19.01.2024 The petitioners have filed the present petition invoking the Order No. 01. 1. inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. inter alia challenging the order dated 14.11.2023 passed by the learned J.M.F.C., Banarpal in G.R. Case No.101 of 2016 rejecting their application under Section 239 Cr.P.C. Earlier the petitioners have approached this Court by moving CRLMC No.593 of 2022 and the coordinate Bench of this Court by its order dated 19.04.2023 directed the petitioners to approach the learned trial court seeking discharge. Pursuance thereof the petitioners had moved the application under Section 239 Cr.P.C. before the trial court and the said application has been turned down by the impugned order. The petitioners seek indulgence of this Court at this stage. Page 1 of 6 2. Heard Mr. Suresh Tripathy, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. P.K. Maharaj, learned counsel for the State. 3. Mr. Tripathy has taken me to the record to submit that by taking the allegation at its face value no case is made out and he intended to point out that the prosecution story itself is completely doubtful and it appears that the petitioners are entangled in a false case. He further taken me to the revenue record and extract of the award of the land acquisition proceeding etc. I am afraid these documents being not part of the record of the charge-sheet whether at this stage this Court could consider the documents. 4. The allegation against the petitioners made in the F.I.R. and in the charge-sheet reflecting on the record reads as under: “It is alleged that on 28.10.2015 at about 5.20 PM during the course of construction of road by M/s. JSPL over the acquired land the present petitioners along with police force and other Government officials forcibly entered to his house and illegally demolished the Asbestos roof house constructed over Ac.0.4 decs. land corresponding to Sabik Plot No.353/564 Sabik Khata HNo.77/54 relates to Hal Plot No.917 and shifted the debris from the demolished house materials in two Hiwa Trucks in order to disappear the evidence about the existence of the house. The petitioners also scolded the mother of the informant in filthy language and asked her who is inside your house. In fear, she told that my daughter-in-law is inside the house and do not enter Page 2 of 6 inside. Listening this they told the mother of the informant that we will outrage the modesty of your daughter-in-law so that she will not show her face to anybody. When the mother of the informant retaliate the same, they tied up her hand and leg. By that time when the father of the informant came outside, the petitioners also gave fist blow to him and petitioner no.1 squeezed his neck in a napkin and when the other family members rushed towards them, petitioner no.1 released him otherwise he would have taken the life of the father of the informant. All the petitioners also snatched away the mobile phones and threatened the family members of the informant to leave the house immediately otherwise we will kill all of you and throw away into the dam. They also took away all the household articles from the house of the informant.” 5. The trial court while dealing with the application under Section 239 Cr.P.C. on 14.11.2023 has passed the impugned order inter alia stating as under: “Now coming to the case in hand, perusal of the complaint petition reveals that the complainant has made the allegations by name against the accused persons. Bare reading of the complaint petition as well as perusal of charge sheet and adjoining documents, prima facie attract the alleged offences u/s. 147/452/341/506/427/201/149 of I.P.C. The allegations made by the prosecutions are not groundless. The contentions made by the Ld. Defense counsel regarding the ownership of the spot land is immaterial for consideration of discharge petition. The charge sheet and the materials available on the case record Page 3 of 6 reveal that a cement concrete with asbestos roof existed on the spot prior to the occurrence. As regards to the involvement of the accused persons some of whom are highly placed officials of Ms. JSPL, this court is of the opinion that it is a question which can be determined during hearing of the case only after recording of evidence. As regards to the judgments relied upon by both the counsels, it is seen that the facts and circumstances of those cases being distinguishable from the facts of the present case, the same are not helpful to the present petition. Hence with the above observation, after examining the material on the record, considering the facts and circumstances of the case and after hearing both the parties, I am of the opinion that there is prima facie case against the accused petitioners u/s. 147/452/341/506/427/201/149 of I.P.C. Accordingly, the discharge petition filed on behalf of the accused petitioners stands rejected being devoid of any merit. Put up on 13.12.2023 for charge. The accused persons are directed to remain present in person on the date fixed.” 6. Mr. Maharaj, learned counsel appearing for the State submits that the prosecution has cited as many as 40 witnesses whereas Mr. Tripathy pointed out that only 12 witnesses were examined by the I.O. under Section 161 Cr.P.C. At this stage, this Court may not venture into the record to conduct an enquiry as to why the other witnesses were not examined under Section 161 Cr.P.C. Page 4 of 6 7. Having said that no indulgence by this Court at this stage could be given to the petitioners except expediting the trial because the present case is germinating from the 1.C.C. case being filed by the informant in the year 2016 under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. The police took about six years to conclude the investigation and filed the charge-sheet on 15.01.2022. The trial court could not proceed in the matter because in the meantime the petitioners have moved application under Section 239 Cr.P.C. seeking discharge. That is one of the contributing factors for the trial to be delayed. However, taking into consideration the peculiar facts of the case, expeditious trial is necessary in this case. Even otherwise, the free, fair and speedy trial being a Constitutional right of every accused person they are entitled to the same. In the peculiar facts of the present case, I am of the considered view that the prosecution should do well to see that the trial is not prolonged and at the same time it is expected that the petitioners being the accused persons shall not hinder the trial by seeking unnecessary adjournment. 8. Accordingly the learned J.M.F.C., Banarpal is directed to conclude the trial in G.R. Case No.101 of 2016 as expeditiously as possible preferably within six months from the date of production of the certified copy of this order. The petitioners are at liberty to seek all remedy available to them under law at appropriate stage. Page 5 of 6 9. With the aforementioned observation, the present CRLMC is disposed of. (S.S. Mishra) Judge Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: ASISH KUMAR KAR Designation: ADR-cum-Addl. Principal Secretary Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 22-Jan-2024 14:37:06 Page 6 of 6