The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK CRLMC No. 4436 of 2023 Bulu Jena and another …. Petitioners Mr. S. K. Panda, Advocate -versus- State of Odisha and another …. Opp. Parties
Legal Reasoning
Mr. S. Patra, ASC CORAM: JUSTICE CHITTARANJAN DASH Order No.
Decision
ORDER 18.12.2023 01. 1. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner and the State. 2. by means of this application, the Petitioners seeks the indulgence of this Court for quashing the FIR dated 01.11.20214 in connection with the Erasama PS Case No.154 of 2014 corresponding to G.R. Case No.1058 of 2014 pending in the court of the learned Special Judge, Jagatsinghpur wherein the Petitioners has been implicated in the offences under Sections 376(D)/511 of the IPC read with Section 6 of the POCSO Act, 2012. 3. The background facts of the case are that on 31.10.2014 night at 9:00 P.M. while the Informant (the Opposite Party No.2, herein) was returning to home from the house of a neighbor Kailash Bhoi on the way, the Petitioners allegedly lifted the Opposite Party No.2 gaging her mouth and took her to a lonely place and having outraged her modesty made attempt to commit rape. As the Petitioners could not be successful in his mission in satisfying his Page 1 of 4 // 2 // lust took her to a dark place and deserted her. On the screaming raised by the Opposite Party No.2 for help, her mother and aunt (sister of father) came out with torch light in search when the Petitioners fled away from the spot and they took the Opposite Party No.2 to their house. The family members of the Opposite Party No.2 informed the matter to the family members of the Petitioners before whom the Petitioners confessed their mistake. However, on the next day i.e. 01.11.2014, the Opposite Party No.2 lodged the FIR in the Police Station. 4. It is submitted by learned counsel for the Petitioners that a false case has been foisted against the Petitioners as the family members of the Informant inimically disposed to the family of the Petitioners. It is further submitted by learned counsel for the Petitioners that the statement recorded under Section 161 CrPC is contradictory to the prosecution story and the statement of other witnesses. The medical examination report also does not reveal anything with regard to the use of force and as such the submission of the charge-sheet in the offences alleged as above noted does not make out a case against the Petitioners and as such the same is not sustainable in the eye of law and further proceeding in the criminal case would be an abuse of the process of law. 5. The learned counsel for the State on the other hand submitted that the allegations in the FIR while clearly implicates the present Petitioners their overt act in the commission of crime constitutes the alleged offences against them. The submission of the learned counsel for the Petitioners that the statement of the victim vis-à-vis Page 2 of 4 // 3 // other witnesses are contradictory cannot be considered in the present application which is a matter of trial. In absence of any material, therefore, the contentions of the learned counsel for the Petitioners for quashing of the FIR merits no consideration. 6. Keeping in view the submission of the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the FIR as well as the statement of the witnesses recorded in course of the investigation clearly depicts the indulgence of the Petitioners in the alleged crime. The narration in the FIR also clearly constitutes the offences alleged against the Petitioners, the statement of the witnesses’ vis-à-vis the victim is also akin to the prosecution story. The contradictions in the statement of the witnesses are the matter of trial. 7. In the case of Medchl Chemicals & Pharma (P) Ltd. v. Biological E. Ltd., reported in (2000) 3 SCC 269, the Apex Court have held as follows:- “Exercise of jurisdiction under the inherent power as envisaged in Section 482 of the Code to have the complaint or the charge-sheet quashed is an exception rather than a rule and the case for quashing at the initial stage must have to be treated as rarest of rare so as not to scuttle the prosecution. With the lodgment of first information report the ball is set to roll and thenceforth the law takes its own course and the investigation ensues in accordance with the provisions of law. The jurisdiction as such is rather limited and is neither restricted and practicable nor warranted. In the event, however, the court on a perusal of the complaint comes to a conclusion that the allegations leveled in the complaint or charge sheet on the face of it do not constitute or disclose any offence as alleged, there ought not to be its undue expansion Page 3 of 4 // 4 // any hesitation to rise up to the expectation of the people and deal with the situation as is required under the law. To exercise powers under Section 482 of the Code, the complaint in its entirety will have to be examined on the basis of the allegation made in the complaint and the High Court at that stage has no authority or jurisdiction to go into the matter or examine its correctness. Whatever appears on the face of the complaint shall be taken into consideration without any critical examination of the same. But the offence ought to appear ex facie on the complaint. The truth or falsity of the allegations would not be gone into by the Court at this earliest stage. Whether or not the allegations in the complaint were true is to be decided on the basis of the evidence led at the trial. 8. It is only in cases when the allegations in the complaint do not make out any case against the accused nor do they disclose the ingredients of an offence alleged against the accused or the allegations are patently absurd and inherently improbable so that no prudent person can ever reach to such a conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused, the power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has to be exercised to quash the prosecution, is also the view in the case of Medchl Chemicals & Pharma (P) Ltd. (supra). 9. In view of the above, this Court finds no material in favour of the Petitioners in order to invoke the jurisdiction under Section 482 of the CrPC. Accordingly, the CRLMC is dismissed. (Chittaranjan Dash) Judge AKPradhan Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: ANANTA KUMAR PRADHAN Designation: Sr. Steno Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA Date: 20-Dec-2023 10:38:13 Page 4 of 4