The High Court
Case Details
IN THE THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CU T CUTTACK CRLMC No. 4450 of 2023 Ranjan Kumar K ar Khilar …. Petitioner Mr. P.S. Das . Das, Advocate -versus- ha State of Odisha …. Opp. Party Mrs. S. Moh Mohanty, ASC CORAM: THE HON’BLE BLE MR. JUSTICE CHITTARANJAN D JAN DASH Date of Judgment: 02.07.2025 Chittaranjan Dash, ash, J. 1. By means eans of the present application, the Petitione etitioner seeks the indulgence of this of this Court praying to quash the order of er of cognizance dated 03.08.2015 .2015 in G.R. Case No.1102 of 2011 2011 (arising of Ghatgaon P.S. C .S. Case No.148 of 2011) passed by t by the learned S.D.J.M., Keonjha eonjhar under Annexure-2. 1. The backg
Facts
background facts of the case are that the Co the Complainant, Basanta Kumar Sa mar Sahoo, presented a Written Report befo rt before the IIC, Ghatgaon P.S. on .S. on 27.11.2011, alleging that on the pre he previous night i.e. 26.11.2011, a 11, about 7 unknown persons committed mitted dacoity in respect of one Tr ne Truck bearing Regd. No. OR-2BED-28 2836, loaded with iron rods wh while the vehicle was on N.H. 215 near near Kukurpota bridge on the poin e point of a pistol. On the basis of such com complaint, the Ghatgaon P.S. C P.S. Case No. l48 of 2011 was regis registered and CRLMC No. 4450 of of 2023 Page 1 of 6 investigation com commenced. Upon completion of the inv the investigation, the Charge-Shee t was submitted implicating the presen present Petitioner as one of the ac the accused in connection with the offen offences under Sections 395/412/1 /412/109 of IPC, r/w. Section 25 of the Arm e Arms Act. 2. The learned S.D.J.M., Keonjhar vide or learn e order dated 03.08.2015 havin having found material against the Petit Petitioner took cognizance to proc to proceed against the Petitioner. The releva relevant portions of the impugned or ned order reads as follows:- “…….Peru Perused the FIR, charge sheets i.e CS. No . No. 78, dated 04.0 04.06.2012 and Supplementary C.S. No. No. 122, dated 28.0 28.07.2015, statement of witnesses reco recorded U/s-161 C 1 Cr.P.C and all the documents avai available therein. Th . There is prima-facie case for the al e alleged offences U es U/s 395/412/109 IPC against the acc accused persons na s namely Dillip Kumar Behera, Ranjan K n Kumar Khillar an r and Nohian @ Narottam Khillar and and U/s- 395/412/10 2/109 IPC/25 Arms Act against the acc accused persons na s namely 1. Sonu @Asim Kumar Guh Guha, 2. Chinu @ C @ Chinmaya Jena, 3. Raju @ Sk. Sulema leman, 4. Sk. Essan, san, 5. Papun @ Ranjan Kumar Beher ehera. 6. Jita@ Kal Kalia @Jitendra Patra, 7. Prafulla K a Kumar Patra, 8. P 8. Papu @ Tapan Kumar Sethy, 9. Dip Dipu @ Deepak Ku k Kumar Palei, 10. Rangadhar Dehory. H y. Hence, cognizance ance of offence punishable U/s-395/412 /412/109 IPC/25 Ar 5 Arms Act is taken. The accused pe persons namely 1. y 1. Dillip Kumar Behera, 2. Ranjan K n Kumar Khilar. 3. . 3. Nohian @ Narottam Khilar, 4. Son Sonu @ CRLMC No. 4450 of of 2023 Page 2 of 6 Asim Kum Kumar Guha, 5. Chinu @ Chinmaya Jen Jena, 6. Raju @ S @ Sk. Suleman, 7. Sk. Essan, 8. Papu apun @ Ranjan Ku n Kumar Behera, 9. Jitu @ Kalia @ Jite Jitendra Patra, 10. 10. Prafulla Kumar Patra, 11. Papu @ T @ Tapan Kumar Set r Sethy, 12. Dipu @ Deepak Kumar Pale Palei are on Court ourt bail and the accused person na namely Rangadhar dhar Dehury is absconder. Hand over over the record to G to G/C.”. 3. The learne earned counsel for the Petitioner, in course course of hearing in this application lication, submitted that the Petitioner is a r is an innocent person and no mat o material is forthcoming against him either either in the FIR or in the statement tement of the witnesses, involving him in any in any manner in any of the offens offenses alleged and therefore, the impu impugned order taking cognizance izance against the present Petitioner is palp s palpably illegal and cannot sustain
Legal Reasoning
ustain in the eye of law and this Court in exe in exercise of the jurisdiction under under Section 482 Cr.PC may quash the cog he cognizance. 4. The learne learned counsel for the State, on the o the other hand, vehemently oppos opposed the contentions raised by the learn e learned counsel for the Petitioner ioner and took this Court to the narration ation of the brief history given in n in the Charge-Sheet beside the statem statement of the witnesses. 5. The brief h brief history of the case clearly implicates th ates the Petitioner to be one of the f the key-accused in the alleged dacoity of the truck loaded with the ir the iron rods. The truck and the stolen mat en materials have been seized therein therein. The submissions of the learned cou d counsel for the Petitioner that the at the involvement of the Petitioner simply o mply on the basis of the statement o ent of the co-accused that he got him intro introduced with CRLMC No. 4450 of of 2023 Page 3 of 6 the person who who purchased the stolen material is no is not the sole material. The case e case record reveals several facts that direc t directly connect the Petitioner to th r to the core of the alleged offence. He is s He is stated to be one of the ten ind en individuals who actively participated in ted in the dacoity on the highway. T ay. Therefore, a strong prima facie case is ase is well made out against him, an im, and he cannot be absolved from the rigo e rigour of law at this stage. 6. The Hon’b Hon’ble Apex Court in its decision in the in the matter of State of Haryana yana vs. Bhajanlal reported in 1992 Sup 2 Supp(1) SCC 335, has laid dow d down the following guidelines for exercis xercise of power under Section 482: n 482:- information ken at their not prima ase against ation report the FIR do tifying an n 156(1) of trate within Where the allegations made in the first inform “(1) Where t or the complaint, even if they are taken at report or th value and accepted in their entirety do not p face value facie consti constitute any offence or make out a case ag ccused. the accused here the allegations in the first information r (2) Where other materials, if any, accompanying the FI and other m justifying disclose a cognizable offence, not disclo tigation by police officers under Section 156( investigatio ode except under an order of a Magistrate w the Code e urview of Section 155(2) of the Code. the purview (3) Where FIR or com of the sam offence and (4) Where, cognizable offence, no without an Section 155 (5) Where t are so absu which no here the uncontroverted allegations made i or complaint and the evidence collected in su e same do not disclose the commission of ce and make out a case against the accused. here, the allegations in the FIR do not constit izable offence but constitute only a non-cogni ce, no investigation is permitted by a police o ut an order of a Magistrate as contemplated u on 155(2) of the Code. here the allegations made in the FIR or comp o absurd and inherently improbable on the ba h no prudent person can ever reach a ade in the in support ion of any constitute a cognizable lice officer lated under r complaint the basis of ach a just CRLMC No. 4450 of of 2023 Page 4 of 6 proceeding conclusion against the (6) Where t of the prov (under whi institution where there concerned grievance o (7) Where with mala maliciously wreaking v spite him d lusion that there is sufficient ground for procee st the accused. here there is an express legal bar engrafted in e provisions of the Code or the concerned er which a criminal proceeding is instituted) t ution and continuance of the proceedings a e there is a specific provision in the Code o erned Act, providing efficacious redress fo ance of the aggrieved party. here a criminal proceeding is manifestly atte mala fide and/or where the proceedin iously instituted with an ulterior motive king vengeance on the accused and with a vie him due to private and personal grudge.” afted in any cerned Act uted) to the ings and/or ode or the ess for the tly attended ceeding is motive for h a view to 7. In view of iew of the above, this Court finds it pertinent rtinent to reiterate that while the pow he power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is to b is to be exercised sparingly though i ough it can be invoked to prevent abuse of se of the process of court where th ere the allegations are patently absurd or rd or manifestly attend to implicate plicate a person without any foundational b onal basis. In the case in hand, the n , the name of the present Petitioner is found found actively to have participated pated in the alleged dacoity, constituting th ting the offences which requires ap res appreciation of evidence. It is well settl ll settled that the pleas advanced b ced by the Petitioner, which pertain to the suf the sufficiency of evidence or sugges suggest a probable defence, cannot be exam examined within the limited scope scope of interference under Section 482 Cr. 82 Cr.P.C. at the pre-trial stage. Acc e. Accordingly, this Court finds no ground t ound to quash the order of cognizanc nizance. 8. As a result result, this Court is of the considered opinio opinion that there is prima facie mat ie material against the Petitioner to proceed oceed in trial and this Court is not is not inclined to interfere with the impu impugned order which is just and t and proper. However, it is open to the P the Petitioner to CRLMC No. 4450 of of 2023 Page 5 of 6 raise all possible ossible permissible legal and factual pl ual plea at the appropriate stage stage including the stage of framing of ng of charge in accordance with la with law. The CRLM
Decision
CRLMC is hence disposed of. Bijay (Chittaranjan Da n Dash) Judge Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BIJAY KETAN SAHOO Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA Date: 03-Jul-2025 16:06:04 CRLMC No. 4450 of of 2023 Page 6 of 6