The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK CRLMC No.1405 of 2024 Abdul Sakoor @ Abdul Sakur ..... Petitioner State Of Odisha -versus- ..... Represented By Adv. – Mr. Mr. Laxminarayan Patel Respondent Represented By Adv. – Mr. P.C. Das, A.S.C. CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR MOHAPATRA
Decision
ORDER 28.06.2024 Order No. 01. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual/ Physical Mode). 2. Heard the learned counsel for the Petitioner as well as learned Additional Standing Counsel appearing for the State-Opposite Party. Perused the CRLMC application as well as the documents annexed thereto 3. This application under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. has been filed by the Petitioner with a prayer to quash the order taking cognizance dated 18.06.2007 against him taking cognizance of the offences under Sections 147/148/307/294/506/427/149 of I.P.C. by the learned S.D.J.M., Sambalpur in C.T. Case No.1764(B) of 2006, arising out of Hirakud P.S. Case No.113 of 2006, now pending in the Page 1 of 6. court of J.M.F.C.-I, Sambalpur. 4. The brief fact of prosecution case is that on 20.11.2006 at about 9.30 P.M., the Informant was present in his S.T.D. booth situated near Lingaraj Rice Mill of Hirakud. The present accused along with some others arrived at the said booth on motor cycles while being armed with deadly weapons like sword, axe, hockey sticks and iron rods and started abusing the Informant in obscene languages. Not only that the Petitioner along with other persons present with him also assaulted the Informant severely with an intention to commit his murder and as a result of the assault, the Informant sustained severe bleeding injuries on his head and other parts of the body. The accused along with other culprits also damaged the S.T.D. booth of the informant and when the nearby people gathered at the spot all of them fled away from spot. 5. Learned counsel for the Petitioner, at the outset, submitted that taking into consideration the allegation made in the F.I.R. as well as the statement of the witnesses recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. as well as the materials on record, if considered together, the same would absolutely not make out any case against the present Petitioner. He further contended that the learned court below has taken cognizance of such offences mechanically without application of judicial mind. He further contended that the Petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case. He further contended that the further continuance of proceeding against the present Petitioner would amount to abuse the process of law and that the same would also be against the interest of justice. 6. In course of his argument, learned counsel for the Petitioner further contended that some of the co-accused persons, who stand in Page 2 of 6. similar footing with the present Petitioner, faced trial in S.T. Case No.237/13 of 2014/15. He also contended that the aforesaid co- accused persons have already been acquitted of all charges on the ground that the prosecution has failed to proof a case under Sections 147/148/307/294/506/427/149 of I.P.C. 7. Learned counsel for the Petitioner, at this juncture, emphatically submitted that the Petitioner stands in a similar footing with the co-accused persons who have been acquitted in the meantime. He further referred to the allegation under Sections 147/148/149 of the I.P.C. which itself implies that the accused persons constituted an unlawful assembly and committed the crime. Laying emphasis on the nature of the allegation, learned counsel for the Petitioner submitted that all the accused persons stand in a similar footing in view of the offences alleged and sections of the I.P.C. which has been added to the list of offences against the accused persons. Therefore, the present Petitioner as well as the co- accused persons who have already been acquitted after trial cannot be segregated and treated separately. 8. With regard to the delay in trial, so far the present Petitioner is concerned, learned counsel for the Petitioner submitted that it was not within the knowledge of the present Petitioner, therefore, he could not appear before the trial court. He further submitted that although the Petitioner has been enlarged on bail in the present case, however, due to non-communication of the relevant dates, the Petitioner could not appear, as a result of which, the case of the Petitioner has been split up from the main case. 9. Learned counsel for the Petitioner further referring to the judgments of this Court in Ram Chandra Das v. State of Orissa, Page 3 of 6. reported in (2015) (II) OLR 510 as well as in Sri Premananda Sahu v. State of Orissa, reported in 2012 (II) OLR 961, submitted that in the aforesaid two reported cases, the accused persons, who faced trial, approached this Court by filing an application under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. for quashing of the order taking cognizance on the ground that co-accused persons, who stand in similar footing to them, have faced trial and they have been acquitted by the trial court. Further, specifically referring to the judgment of this Court in Sri Premandndas Sahu’s case (supra), learned counsel for the Petitioner submitted that this Court has held that the power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., which is inherent in nature, can always be invoked by this Court in an appropriate case to quash the order of cognizance in a case of the present nature. In the aforesaid case, co-accused persons have faced trial and they were acquitted. The Petitioner in the above noted reported case approached this Court by filing an application under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. for quashing of order of cognizance on the ground that co-accused persons who stand in similar footing, have already been acquitted and that compelling the Petitioner to face the trial is not only an abuse of the process of law, but also would amount to a futile exercise on the part of the trial court. 10. Learned counsel for the State, on the other hand, submitted that in the present case, cognizance has been taken way back in the year 2007 for commission of the offences as stated hereinabove. He further contended that since the Petitioner did not appear and did not cooperate with the trial court for an early conclusion of the trial, the pending trial had to be split up against the co-accused persons. Accordingly the co-accused persons have faced trial and after such trial they have been acquitted on the basis of the evidence collected against such co-accused persons. So far the present Petitioner is Page 4 of 6. concerned, learned counsel for the Petitioner submitted that it is due to the default of the present Petitioner that the trial could not be concluded for such a long time, as the Petitioner remained absent even after release on bail. In such view of the matter, learned counsel for the State submits that the present application under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. with a prayer for quashing of order taking cognizance should not be entertained by this Court at this stage. He further submitted that any interference by this Court at this stage would amount to giving on unfair advantage to the accused Petitioner. On such ground, learned counsel for the State submitted that the present petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. is devoid of merit and the same should be dismissed. 11. Having heard the learned counsels appearing for the respective parties and on a careful examination of the materials on record as well as on a careful examination of the background facts of the present case, this Court observes that both the Petitioner as well as the co-accused persons were arrayed as accused in Hirakud P.S. Case No.113 of 2006 for commission of offence under Sections 147/148/307/294/506/427/379/149 of I.P.C. On perusal of the F.I.R. it appears that omnibus allegations have been made against 9 accused persons. On further examination of the F.I.R., it appears that all the accused persons stand in a similar footing. This Court is of the further view that all the accused persons should have faced trial together. However, the Petitioner defaulted in appearing before the trial court, as a result of which, the case has been split up and trial has been concluded in respect of co-accused persons. 12. On perusal of the judgment dated 23rd August, 2022 passed in S.T. Case No.237/13 of 2014-15 at Annexure-3 to the application, it Page 5 of 6. appears that one Pradeep Sahu, who is one of the accused, faced trial in the present case and has been acquitted by holding that the said accused is not guilty of the offence alleged against him. On further examination of the F.I.R., it appears that the above named Pradeep Sahu has not been named as an accused, however, subsequently he has been added as an accused in the case. 13. In such view of the matter, this Court is of the view that it cannot be said that the Petitioner stands similar footing with the above named accused who has been acquitted. However, considering the fact that the case is of the year 2006, this Court directs the Petitioner to appear before the trial court and cooperate with the trial court for an early conclusion of the trial. In the event the Petitioner appears before the learned trial court and on presentation of a copy of this order, the trial court shall do well to make every endeavour to ensure that the trial in split up case, so far the present Petitioner is concerned, be concluded as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of four months from the date of communication of a copy of this order by the Petitioner. 14. With the aforesaid observation and direction, the CRLMC stands disposed of. ( Aditya Kumar Mohapatra) Judge Debasis Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: DEBASIS AECH Reason: Authentication Location: OHC, CUTTACK. Date: 02-Jul-2024 18:05:12 Page 6 of 6.