The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK CRLMC No.301 of 2025 Shakti Kumar Das …. Petitioner Mr.Jugala Kishore Panda, Advocate State of Odisha & another …. Opp. Party -versus- Mr.S.J.Mohanty, ASC CORAM: JUSTICE SIBO SANKAR MISHRA Order No. ORDER 18.02.2025 03. 1. This petition is directed against the order dated 16.12.2024 passed by the learned 2nd Additional District & Sessions Judge, Baripada in G.R. Case
Legal Reasoning
No.09 of 2021 arising out of Baripada Sadar P.S. Case No.04 of 2021, whereby the application moved by the petitioner/accused under Section 227 of the Cr. P.C. seeking discharge has been turned down. 2. Earlier, the petitioner had approached this Court by filing CRLMC No.3087 of 2022 challenging the order dated 11.10.2021 passed by the learned Special Judge, Mayurbhanj in G.R. Case No.9 of 2021 arising out of Baripada Sadar P.S. Case No.4 of 2021, Page 1 of 6 whereby the cognizance of the offences punishable under Sections 337/338/294/506 of the IPC r/w Sections 3(1)(r)(s)/3(2)(va) of the SC & ST (PoA) Act was taken against the petitioner. 3. The Coordinate Bench of this Court although had dismissed the said petition, however permitted the petitioner to raise all the points before the trial Court at the appropriate stage. 4. Pursuant thereto, the present petitioner moved an application on 23.07.2024 before the trial Court under Section 227 of the Cr. P.C. The said application was objected by the prosecution by filing objection dated 10.12.2024. By taking into consideration the materials placed on record and the points urged by the petitioner and the objection of the prosecution, the impugned order has been passed. The trial Court has relied upon the following judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the cases of State of Himachal Pradesh vs. Krishan Lal Pradhan and others, reported in (1987) 2 SCC 17, Captain Manjit Singh Virdi vs. Hussain Mohammed Shattaf and others, reported in (2023) 7 SCC 633, State of Karnataka vs. M.R. Hiremath, reported in (2019) 7 SCC 515, State of Rajasthan vs. Ashok Kumar Kashyap, reported in (2021) 11 SCC 191 and M.E. Shivalingamurthy vs. CBI, reported in (2020) 2 SCC 768. 5. On the basis of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Page 2 of 6 Supreme Court on the subject and the material placed by the I.O. in the form of charge sheet, the trial Court proceeded to observe as under: “In this case, on examination of the materials submitted by IO and prosecution in the light of the observations made by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the above referred cases, sufficient materials are found prima facie suggesting commission of the alleged offences by the accused. The FIR and the statement of complainant recorded under section 161 of Cr.PC, even if read in isolation, make out all the alleged offences, of which cognizance has been taken. At this stage, truthfulness of the allegations cannot be looked into. Further, this is not the appropriate stage to consider the defence plea that complainant’s husband was not working for accused, or that complainant had requested the accused for financial help, or that on refusal of accused complainant has falsely implicated him. All these aspects can be gone into during the trial only.” 6. Aggrieved by the aforementioned order passed by the learned Court below, the petitioner has filed the present case.
Legal Reasoning
7. Mr. Panda, learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently argued that the present case is an after- thought because in the F.I.R., the story narrated by the informant is completely contrary to the improvised story put forth by her in her statement under Section 161 of the Cr. P.C. He has contended that the present F.I.R. has been filed with a motive to extract the money from the petitioner and is an ulterior design ployed by the petitioner. The place of incident is also doubtful. In that regard, he has contended that Ramesh Cement Works Factory has Page 3 of 6 already been closed long back. Therefore, the story put forth by the informant is also manufactured one. The prosecutor, in his objection, however has contended that this is not the stage where the Court should delve upon the merits of the case. 8. The precise allegation made by the informant in the present case is that her husband was asked by the petitioner to plaster the wall. However, due to sudden fall, the right leg of her husband got fractured. Therefore, he was shifted to the medical for treatment and on 30.12.2020 at about 5 P.M. the doctor referred the injured to the S.C.B. Medical College & Hospital, Cuttack. However, due to the pathetic financial condition, she could not take her husband to the hospital. When she came to the house of the petitioner and demanded the arrear dues of her husband and asked for medical expenses, the informant was rebuked and she was scolded and abused. Therefore, the F.I.R. was registered. 9. The investigation of the case was completed and the Final Form was filed on 07.01.2021 for the alleged commission of the offences punishable under Sections 337/338/294/506 of the IPC r/w Sections 3(1)(r)/3(1)(s)/3(2)(va) of the SC & ST (PoA) Act. 10. The learned trial Court, vide order dated 08.10.2021, had taken the cognizance of the offences as mentioned above. 11. I have perused the allegations made by the Page 4 of 6 informant in the F.I.R. and the statements of the witnesses recorded by the police under Section 161 of the Cr. P.C. Apart from the statements of the informant, which has been recorded by the police on the date of the F.I.R. i.e. on 07.01.2021, the statements of the other witnesses have also been recorded on the next day i.e. 08.01.2021. 12. I have meticulously gone through the statements of the witnesses, namely, Dipu Singh, Pulin Kumar Naik, Sarat Singh, Kanhu Singh, Gaya Tudu, Sonali Tudu etc., recorded under Section 161 of the Cr. P.C. the informant in her statement recorded under Section 161 of the Cr. P.C. has made very categorical allegation against the petitioner and the said statement has been corroborated by the statements of the other witnesses. Merely because the statement of the informant is somehow contradictory to the F.I.R., does not make out a case for the petitioner for discharge from the case. 13. It is well settled principle of law enunciated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court as has been relied upon by the learned trial Court that at the time of framing of the charges, the Court is to only arrive at a conclusion whether the prima facie case regarding commission of the offence is made out or not. The question whether the charges would be proved or not can be determined only after the evidence is recorded in the case. Therefore, the learned trial Court has Page 5 of 6 rightly relied upon the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court as has been mentioned above and passed the impugned order. 14. In that view of the matter, I am not inclined to interfere with the order of the learned trial Court, which is just and proper and well within the fore- corner of law. 15. The CRLMC is accordingly dismissed. Judge (S.S. Mishra) Subhasis Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: SUBHASIS MOHANTY Designation: Personal Assistant Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack. Date: 20-Feb-2025 18:52:20 Page 6 of 6