The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK CRLMC No.1642 of 2024 Dibya Ranjan Pani & Others …. Petitioners Mr. S.K. Dalai, Advocate -versus- State of Odisha …. Opposite Party Mr. P.K. Maharaj, ASC CORAM: JUSTICE SIBO SANKAR MISHRA Order No.
Decision
ORDER 15.05.2024 02. 1. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode. 2. The petitioners are the accused in Athagarh P.S. Case No.257 of 2019 corresponding to C.T. Case No.130 of 2019 pending in the court of the learned P.O., Special Court under SC & ST (POA) Act, Cuttack. 3. After investigation, a Final Report was filed by the Investigating Officer on 09.11.2020 inter alia stating that no offences against the petitioners are made out. However, vide order dated 19.02.2021, the P.O., Special Court under SC & ST (POA) Act, Cuttack had taken cognizance of offences under Page 1 of 6 Sections 420/294/506(ii)/34 IPC read with Section 3(1)(r)(s) & 2 (va) of the SC & ST (PoA) Act. The petitioners in this petition have assailed the said order dated 19.02.2021 inter alia on the ground that the court below has taken the cognizance of the offence without application of mind despite the fact that the Police has filed a closure report. 4. Heard Mr. S.K. Dalai, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. P.K. Maharaj, learned Additional Standing Counsel appearing for the State. 5. Mr. S.K. Dalai, learned counsel for the petitioners referring to the findings returned by the court below in the impugned order submitted that none of the witnesses have uttered a single sentence against the petitioners in their statements under Section 161 Cr.P.C. He particularly pointed out the following paragraph from the impugned order: “It is the specific allegation of the informant that the accused persons enamored him for greater profit in giving training and in pursuance of such promises, he utilized all his computers, equipments etc. for the purpose and he was contracted to get return for a sum of Rs.11,49,500/- from the accused persons. This allegation attributable to cheating is prima facie Page 2 of 6 made out on basis of the FIR story and the statements of the informant and his wife. His affirmation in the FIR that when he persuaded with them after completion of the project for his return, the accused persons abused him in obscene words “sala, magiha, madorchod” and aspersed in his caste in saying “Jatire dhoba, chhuinle chhuanti heba, brahman mohantynka agare katha kahuchhu” supported by their 161 statements is also appearing to prima facie constitute the offences of abuse and atrocity. Further, they also threatened him in terms of the words “Jeun thanare jete casedeichhu de, amara kehi chhodi pariba nahin, karana ame sabu mantri O bidhayak thana mananku paisa dei hatere rakhichhu” and they will kill by bombing and to make them into pieces. These are some of the allegations depicted in the FIR with support and corroboration from the statements of the informant and his wife and thus, these prima facie build up offences punishable u/s. 420/294/ 506(ii)/34 IPC read with Sec.3 (1)(r)(s) & 2(va) of the SC & ST (PoA) Act. Many of the accused persons are prima facie appearing to be public servants. But, the acts complained of against them have got no reasonable nexus/connection with the discharge of their official duties and therefore, the protection Page 3 of 6 provided u/s.197 Cr.P.C. does not safeguard them from being prosecuted. Therefore, on basis of prima facie materials on record, I find that the Investigating Officer failed to properly assess the evidentiary value of the FIR and the statements of the informant and his wife and whimsically submitted final report showing insufficient evidence. Therefore, instead of accepting his report, I think it just and proper to take cognizance of the alleged offences as narrated above and thus, the cognizance of offences punishable u/s. 420/294/506(ii)/34 IPC read with Sec.3 (1)(r)(s) & 2(va) of the SC & ST (PoA) Act is taken. There are materials to proceed against the FIR named accused persons. Their complete details of name and address are necessary to issue process against them. In such a situation, the IO is directed to furnish complete details with name, age, parentage and present address etc. of the accused persons and the witnesses as well for issuance of summons against them within a period of fifteen days from the date of receipt of the copy of this order. Put up on 15.3.2021 for further orders.” 6. Referring to the aforementioned paragraph, he submitted that the observations made by the Court below are contrary to Page 4 of 6 record. To substantiate the said argument, he has read over the statement of the complainant recorded by the Police under Section 161 Cr.P.C. Perusal of the statement of the complainant indicate that in his statement he has not given any detail regarding the manner in which the petitioners have abused him and what are the sentences uttered by the petitioners casting aspersion against him. Therefore, he says that the finding recorded by the court below is imaginary and devoid of record. Hence, the cognizance order is a classic case of non-application of mind by the court below. 7. Mr. Maharaj, learned counsel for the State controverted the submission made by Mr. Dalai and taken me to the initial FIR recorded by the Police on 15.10.2019. In the FIR the complainant has narrated in minute detail about the incident and the manner in which the petitioners have committed the crime by abusing and causing aspersion. For the sake of brevity, the details are not narrated in this order. But suffice it to say that the FIR consisting of three pages giving narration of overt attributed to the petitioners against the complainant. When the statement of the complainant was recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C., he has not given the detail, however, he has said that the petitioners have abused him saying that he belongs to a lower caste and they have also Page 5 of 6 threatened to kill him. In that view of the matter, Mr. Maharaj says that the statement of the complainant recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. cannot be read in isolation, it has to be read in the context of the detail given in the F.I.R. Apart from that the Police has recorded the statement of many witnesses under Section 161 Cr.P.C. wherein allegations are made against the petitioners. Contrary to all the evidences collected by the Police, the Police have preferred to file a closure report. Therefore, the court below by analyzing the evidence brought on record by the Investigating Agency has taken the cognizance. 8. I find no reason to interfere in this matter on facts. However, the question as to whether a particular offence is made out from the documents and evidence placed by the Police on record or not is a matter to be dealt with at the stage of framing of charges. Therefore, the petitioners are given liberty to argue all the points available to them at the stage of framing of charges. 9. With this liberty, the CRLMC is disposed of. Judge (S.S. Mishra) 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: 17-May-2024 10:27:48 Page 6 of 6