The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK CRLMC No. 5106 of 2023 Ashok Kumar Panigrahi Petitioner Mr. Amit Shrivastava, Advocate …. -versus- Ajit Kumar Panigrahi & another …. Opp. Parties
Legal Reasoning
Mr. Debasish Biswal, ASC CORAM: JUSTICE CHITTARANJAN DASH Order No.
Decision
ORDER 22.12.2023 01. 1. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner and the State. 2. By means of this application, the Petitioner seeks indulgence of this Court, praying to quash the order dated 25.04.2023 passed by the learned J.M.F.C., Purushottampur in I.C.C. Case No.08 of 2022, wherein the learned court pursuant to the complaint filed by one Ajit Kumar Panigrahi took cognizance of the offence under Sections 302/323/326/307/34, I.P.C. 3. The factual background of the case are that the complainant lodged a report with the Purushottampur P.S. in the district of Ganjam alleging that on 08.06.2022 at about 9.30 PM in the evening while he along with one of his co-villager namely Jogesh Behera was proceeding towards his house in a bike, on the main road near the Jagannath Temple of the village, some villagers namely Gopal Mohanty Krushna, Ashok Panigrahi (the present petitioner) and others obstructed his way and all of a sudden they attacked the complainant by means of lethal weapons, whereby Jogesh Behera Page 1 of 4 // 2 // succumbed to the injuries. It is further alleged in the F.I.R. that amongst the assailants Gopal Mohanty, Krushna, Gajapati, Jhadia and Ashok Panigrahi dealt sword blows on the head of the deceased. The informant got frightened and ran away from the spot. At the relevant time some persons of the same Panchayat hearing the scream raised by the injured, rushed to their rescue and seeing them, the assailants decamped. The injured was shifted to the hospital. The F.I.R. further disclosed that the alleged incident is the result of political vendetta. After the investigation was over, as the police submitted Final Report, the Petitioner has moved this Court in CRLMP No.2533 of 2022, wherein this Court vide order dated 22.12.2022 granted liberty to the Petitioner to approach the Superintendent of Police, Ganjam by filing his grievance application along with the certified copy of the order through Registered Post within two weeks, and in the event such grievance petition is received by Opposite Party No.2 (SP), he/she is directed to take a decision in accordance with law. However, the complainant lodged a complaint before the learned J.M.F.C., Purushottampur, and the learned Court having recorded the initial statement of the complainant and proceeding with the enquiry as required under Section 202, Cr.P.C., took cognizance of the offence under Sections 302/323/326/307/34, I.P.C. against the Petitioner and others. 4. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the Petitioner that the Petitioner has no role whatsoever in the alleged murder of the deceased and he is in no way connected with the alleged crime save and except that he has been implicated due to political rivalry. Page 2 of 4 // 3 // 5. Learned ASC for the State on the contrary vehemently opposed the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the Petitioner and submitted that the name of the Petitioner is tale-tell clear in the complaint besides the overt act committed by him and the death of the deceased being one of homicidal in nature, there is no illegality committed by the learned court below in taking cognizance against the petitioner. 6. In the case of Medchl Chemicals & Pharma (P) Ltd. vs. 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. its undue expansion 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 restricted and is neither 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 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 Page 3 of 4 // 4 // 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. 10. 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 the allegations are patently absurd and accused or 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). 7. In the case at hand, the complaint clearly reveals that the Petitioner along with others dealt sword blows on the deceased as well as the injured-informant that caused fatal and the deceased died of such injuries. The post-mortem report also substantiates the nature of death of the deceased. The offence committed by the Petitioner being one of grave and heinous in nature coupled with the fact that the name of the Petitioner has clearly been spelt out to be the assailant, it is not desirable to invoke the jurisdiction under Section 482, Cr.P.C., as it would amount to otherwise abuse of the process of law, if the same is nipped in the bud without being taking into trial. 8. In that view of the matter, this Court is not inclined to interfere in the impugned order, and the CRLMC being devoid of merit stands dismissed. Signature Not Verified (Chittaranjan Dash) Judge Digitally Signed Signed by: SAMIR KUMAR PARIDA Designation: ADR-cum-ADDL. PRINCIPAL SECRETARY Reason: Authentic Copy Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 22-Dec-2023 18:11:28 S.K. Parida Page 4 of 4