Sri Pabitra Sahu v. Miss Gayatri Patra, ASC

ORDER 15.07.2026

This matter is taken up through hybrid arrangement.

In filing the present CRLMC, the Petitioner against whom the allegation of killing the victim named Tofan Swain while he was returning to his village along with his other two friends named Rahul Swain and Aditya Sahu from Tara Tarini Chowk on 01.07.2025 is made, has prayed for quashing the entire criminal proceeding initiated based on the said allegation vide G.R. Case No.951 of 2025 arising out of Chatrapur P.S. Case No.405 dated

02.07.2025 pending before the Court of learned S.D.J.M, Chatrapur.

1. Heard.

2. Learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that the criminal proceeding in question has been maliciously instituted owing to prior animosity between the parties. It is contended that the Petitioner has been falsely implicated and bears no nexus whatsoever with the offences alleged in the impugned FIR. Learned counsel emphatically asserts that the Petitioner has never assaulted the victims, as alleged. He also contends that the name of the Petitioner has not been reflected in the FIR, rather, he has been entangled in this case based on the confessional statement of the co-accused persons. He submits that role of the present Petitioner has not been separately described the charge-sheet. He also contends that in the criminal cases, role of the each accused persons should be described separately in the charge-sheet. According to him, continuation of the proceeding would amount to an abuse of the process of Court and result in undue harassment to the Petitioner. In order to strengthen the case of the present Petitioner he also relies on a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Sharif Ahmed and Another Vrs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Anr.1 On these premises, he prays that this Court may be pleased to allow the relief sought in the present CRLMC and quash the impugned proceeding in the interest of justice. 1 Criminal Appeal @ SLP (Crl.) No.1074 of 2017 & Ors.

In opposition, learned counsel for the State submits that pursuant to registration of the F.I.R., investigation has been duly conducted and culminated in submission of charge-sheet against the Petitioner and other co-accused persons. It is contended that because of the lackadaisical attitude of the accused persons including the present Petitioner, trial in the above noted case is running in a senile pace which is not conducive to the criminal justice system.

Learned counsel further submits that the veracity of the allegations, the defence plea of prior enmity, and the question of false implication are all matters to be adjudicated upon evidence during the course of trial. According to her, premature interference would stifle a legitimate prosecution. She, accordingly, prays dismissal of the present CRLMC.

Having considered the rival submissions advanced on behalf of the parties and upon perusal of the materials available on record, this Court finds that the investigation has culminated in submission of charge-sheet. At this juncture, the question as to whether the Petitioner has in fact committed the offences alleged against him is essentially a matter to be adjudicated upon appreciation of evidence during trial.

It is trite that evaluation of factual controversies, assessment of credibility of witnesses, and appreciation of evidence fall squarely within the domain of the trial court. The inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is not intended to supplant the statutory procedure of trial or to conduct a mini-trial at the pre-trial stage.

The power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is to be exercised sparingly, with circumspection, and only in rare cases where the complaint or charge-sheet on its face discloses no offence, or where there exists a legal bar to the institution or continuance of the proceeding, or where continuation of the prosecution would amount to a manifest abuse of the process of Court. In the absence of such exceptional circumstances, judicial restraint must prevail.

In the present case, this Court does not find any patent illegality, jurisdictional error, or embargo warranting interference. The defence plea of prior enmity and false implication are matters to be established before the learned trial court in accordance with law.

Accordingly, this Court declines to exercise its inherent jurisdiction to quash the aforesaid criminal proceeding. However, considering the submission made on behalf of the Petitioner that the Petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case, this Court permits the Petitioner to file a petition seeking discharge from the charges levelled against him before the learned Court in seisin over the matter at appropriate stage, which shall be considered and disposed of on its own merit and in accordance with law.

This CRLMC is, accordingly, disposed of. Ayaskanta Judge (Dr. Sanjeeb K Panigrahi)