Orissa High Court
T. Chalapati Rao vs The State on 10 July, 2002
Author: P.K. Mohanty
Bench: P.K. Mohanty
JUDGMENT P.K. Mohanty, J.
1. The petitioner assails the order of the learned S.D.J.M., Bhanjanagar in G. R. Case No. 2719 of 1998 taking cognizance of offences under Sections 342, 353, 379, 201 and 114/34 of the Indian Penal Code (in short, "IPC") and issuing process against him and has prayed for quashing such order of cognizance as against him.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there being no allegation whatsoever in the F.I.R. and the statement of witnesses recorded under Section 161, Cr.P.C. by the police as against the petitioner, the learned Magistrate, on the basis of his name in the Charge-sheet could not have taken cognizance and issued process. The learned counsel has placed the F.I.R. and the statements recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. in support of his contention that there is no allegation even, on which the cognizance could be taken.
3. The short fact of the prosecution case is that, on 20.4.1998 at about 7 P.M., when the informant-Constable was keeping watch over an Ambassador Car bearing Regn. No. WMA 118, which caused an accident at that spot, under the direction of the A.S.I. of Police Jagannath Prasad Outpost, he was informed by one Kar Babu along with some other persons of the village, (whom he does not know but can identify) that the matter has been compromised and therefore, he should leave the place. But the informant Constable did not agree. It is further alleged that on his refusal, six named persons in the F.l.R. along with about fifty other villagers surrounded him and taking advantage of that the driver was about to take out the vehicle, but when he tried to prevent him from doing so, the owner of the Bhanjanagar Medico Medicine Shop dragged him to facilitate the driver to drive away the vehicle from the spot i.e. Vijay Dhanurjoyapur. The F.l.R. was lodged by the said Constable and the P.S. Case was registered.
4. The learned Addl. Public Prosecutor however submitted that the Charge-sheet has been filed against the petitioner along with others and he has been shown as absconder, since, he could not be apprehended and therefore, the order of cognizance has rightly been taken. The learned Addl. Public Prosecutor, however, is not able to point his linger on any of the statements recorded under Section 161, Cr.P.C. during investigation of the case to show that there is any allegation against the petitioner to have taken part in the incident and the alleged crime except one statement of Sri Brajrangilal Choudhury, the owner of the offending car, who stated that the petitioner T. Chalapati Rao had requested him to give his car to go to Bhanjanagar, Belguntha and Jagannath Prasad to obtain orders for supply of medicines and accordingly, he had given his car WMA 118. But on 20th July. 1998 night, his driver came back and kept the vehicle in the garage but did not inform about the accident or the incident. Except this statement, no other statement has been pointed out to connect the petitioner in the alleged-crime. If this statement is taken as a whole to be true, what it means is that the petitioner had taken the vehicle in question with the driver for obtaining medicine orders and nothing else.
5. Law is well settled that taking the F.I.R.and/or the statement of witnesses recorded during investigation of its face value, without adding or substracting anything, if no offence is made out, the High Court would in the interest of justice be justified in interfering with the order of cognizance. Leaving any person arrayed as an accused in a criminal proceeding to face a prosecution without any material whatsoever, only because a Charge-sheet is filed against the accused on the reasoning that the accused can plead his innocence during the trial would be an abuse of the process of law and counter productive. Only because, in the Charge-sheet, the petitioner's name finds place without any other material to connect him in the alleged offence, he cannot be asked to face the prosecution and plead his innocence.
6. In such view of the matter, the impugned order of the learned Magistrate taking cognizance of the offences against the present petitioner, issuing of process and the order rejecting his application for recalling the order of cognizance are quashed.
The Crl. Misc. Case is allowed to the extent indicated. The lower Court records be transmitted immediately to enable the learned Magistrate to proceed with the case in accordance with law expeditiously as against other accused persons.