The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK CRLREV No.376 of 2022 Amit Kumar Mohanty … Petitioner Mr. A.K. Panda, Advocate -Versus- State of Odisha & another … Opposite parties Ms. B. Dash, ASC Mr. A. Sarangi, Advocate (O.P. No.2) CORAM: MR. JUSTICE R.K. PATTANAIK
Decision
ORDER 10.07.2025 Order No. 05. 1. Heard Mr. Panda, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Sarangi, learned counsel for opposite party No.2 besides Ms. Dash, learned ASC for the State. 2. Instant revision is filed by the petitioner challenging the impugned order dated 29th July, 2022 as at Annexure-6 passed in connection with S.T. No.01 of 2021 by learned Special Judge, Champua arising out of G.R. Case No.18 of 2021, whereby, exercising jurisdiction under Section 319 Cr.P.C. upon evidence received from opposite party No.2, he has been arrayed as an accused on the grounds inter alia that such a decision is not legally tenable and therefore, the same is liable to be interfered with. Page 1 of 5 3. Mr. Panda, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the prosecution evidence is in progress as cross-examination of opposite party No.2 as a witness from the side of the prosecution is pending and at that stage, learned Court below invoking Section 319 Cr.P.C. arrayed the petitioner as an accused. It is also submitted that the impugned order dated 29th July, 2022 is not a speaking order and therefore, it cannot be sustained in the eye of law. 4. Mr. Sarangi, learned counsel for opposite party No.2, on the other hand, submits that the name of the petitioner does find a place in the FIR, a copy of which is at Annexure-1 and therefore, it was not unjustified on the part of the learned Court below adding him as an accused. It is also submitted that the evidence of opposite party No.2 implicated the petitioner, hence, he has been arrayed as an accused by the learned Court below exercising power under Section 319 Cr.P.C. 5. In reply and response to the above, Mr. Panda, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that learned Court below exercised the power without considering the materials on record by a non-speaking order vide Annexure-6 and that apart, such implication of the petitioner is not proved especially with reference to the statement of the father of opposite party No.2, whose statement was recorded during investigation and while claiming so, he refers to the same as at Annexure-3 filed along with a copy of the chargesheet dated 1st March, 2021. Page 2 of 5 6. Perused the FIR as at Annexure-1. As it appears, there is a counter FIR, a copy of which is at Annexure-2. Upon registration of Barbil P.S. Case No.183 dated 30th December, 2020 for the alleged offences, the chargesheet was filed in 2021 only against one accused and not the petitioner. As informed by Mr. Panda, learned counsel for the petitioner, no protest petition was filed by opposite party No.2 upon filing the chargesheet, since the petitioner was let off when such an option was available. In course of trial, as it further appears, while recording the evidence of opposite party No.2 and considering the application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. received from the Prosecution, learned Court below arrayed the petitioner as an accused. 7. On a reading of the impugned order at Annexure-6, this Court finds that learned Court below, while considering such an application under Section 319 Cr.P.C, was of the view that the same should be allowed in the interest of justice. In fact, there has been no discussion of any evidence on record with reference to the FIR i.e. Annexure-1 and the chargesheet filed as per Annexure-3. The Court is of the humble view that merely for the reason that the name of someone being mentioned in the FIR but not chargesheeted, it would be sufficient for a Court to array him as an accused invoking Section 319 Cr.P.C. In the considered view of the Court, such exercising of power under Section 319 Cr.P.C. is only upon examining the materials on record and also the evidence, if any, received in the case during trial. The cross- Page 3 of 5 examination of a witness is not a must and necessary to invoke any such power as rightly pointed out by Mr. Sarangi, learned counsel for opposite party No.2. Rather, what is important is the satisfaction to be arrived at for reaching at a conclusion one way or the other. In the instant case, learned Court below without any discussion with reference to the material evidence proceeded to add the petitioner as an accused exercising power under Section 319 Cr.P.C. In fact, the impugned order dated 29th July, 2022 at Annexure-6 does not assign any reason. 8. Mr. Sarangi, learned counsel for opposite party No.2 cited a decision of the Apex Court in Manjeet Singh Vrs. State of Haryana & others (2021) 18 SCC 321 to contend that the name of the petitioner does find mention in the FIR as at Annexure-1 and his involvement in the alleged incident stood revealed by opposite party No.2, while being examined as P.W.1 and therefore, the same is sufficient enough for the learned Court below to exercise power under Section 319 Cr.P.C. On a sincere reading of the decision (supra), the Court finds that the Apex Court held and concluded that in case, the investigating agency, for no apparent reason failed to chargesheet an accused, the Court in seisin over the matter is not powerless in calling him to face the trial. The jurisdiction of a Criminal Court under Section 319 Cr.P.C. has been discussed in detail and it has been concluded therein by the Apex Court that such an exercise can be undertaken by a Court to proceed against any person, who is not an accused having not been chargesheeted. It does not mean Page 4 of 5 that a Court’s bounden duty to examine the material on record in its entirety before taking a decision, whether, to add or not any person as accused followed by a reasoned order is dispensed with, rather, such an exercise shall have to be keeping in view the settled principle of law discussed and highlighted upon by the Apex Court in Manjeet Singh (supra). In the case at hand, no such exercise has been undertaken by the learned Court below and simply upon receiving the application from the Prosecution without assigning any reason allowed it and directed summoning of the petitioner, which, in the considered view of the Court, cannot be countenanced and hence, therefore, any such request to add him as an accused requires reconsideration. Accordingly, it is ordered. 9. In result, the revision petition is allowed. As a necessary corollary, the impugned order dated 29th July, 2022 at Annexure-6 in S.T. Case No.01 of 2021 is hereby set aside with a direction to the learned Special Judge, Champua to freshly consider Annexure-4 and thereafter, to pass a detailed and reasoned order at the earliest preferably within a period of fifteen days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order bearing in mind the observations made and legal position discussed hereinabove. 10. Issue urgent certified copy as per rules. Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: ALOK RANJAN SETHY Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT Date: 15-Jul-2025 10:57:45 Alok (R.K. Pattanaik) Judge Page 5 of 5