Orissa High Court
Debendra Kumar Roul vs State Of Orissa on 7 November, 2016
Author: S. K. Sahoo
Bench: S.K. Sahoo
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK
CRLREV NO. 674 of 2016
From the order dated 22.02.2016 passed by the learned
S.D.J.M., Kendrapara in G.R. Case No.1706 of 2015.
----------------------
Debendra Kumar Roul ......... Petitioner
-Versus-
State of Orissa ......... Opp. Party
For Petitioner: - Dr. Susant Ku. Kanungo
For Opp. party: - Mr. Dillip Kumar Mishra
Addl. Govt. Advocate
---------------------
P R E S E N T:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.K. SAHOO
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date of Argument and Order - 07.11.2016
------------------------------------------------------------------------
S. K. Sahoo, J.Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State.
The petitioner Debendra Kumar Roul has filed this revision petition challenging the impugned order dated 22.02.2016 passed by the learned S.D.J.M., Kendrapara in G.R. Case No.1706 of 2016 in taking cognizance of the offences under 2 sections 341/ 323/ 324/ 294/ 506/ 379/ 307/120-B of the Indian Penal Code.
It appears that the First Information Report was lodged on 23.12.2015 by one Pradumna Patra before the Inspector in Charge of Kendrapara Sadar Police Station, on the basis of which Kendrapara Sadar P.S. Case No.323 of 2015 was instituted under sections 341/ 323/ 324/ 294/ 506/ 379/34 of the Indian Penal Code.
As per the First Information Report, it is the case of the informant Pradumna Patra that after the arrest of Sarathi Baba, at his instance, the petitioner who is the elder brother of Sarathi Baba along with some anti-socials abused the informant and threatened him with dire consequence. It is further stated in the First Information Report that in that connection, previously one F.I.R. was lodged and on 23.12.2015 at about 3.00 p.m. while the informant was returning home, at that point of time, the petitioner along with his associates stopped the informant on the way, abused him in filthy language and attempted to kill the informant by means of a knife/bhujali as a result of which the informant sustained injury on his hand. It is further stated that an amount of Rs.30,000/- was taken away from the informant by the accused persons.
3
One Prajna Ritambhara Dhal, S.I. of Police, Kendrapara Sadar Police Station, Kendrapara took up
investigation and on completion of investigation, he submitted preliminary charge sheet under sections 341/ 323/ 324/ 294/ 506/ 379/ 307/120-B of the Indian Penal Code against the petitioner and others, keeping the investigation open under section 173(8) of Cr.P.C. for collection of further evidence and for the arrest of remaining accused persons.
Dr. Susant Kumar Kanungo, learned counsel for the petitioner while challenging the impugned order of taking cognizance contended that the petitioner has been falsely entangled in the case as because he is the elder brother of Sarathi Baba and a cock and bull story has been coined in a desperate attempt by presenting the First Information Report to harass the petitioner. He further submitted that when the informant was not sure what was the exact weapon of offence for which he has mentioned it is either knife or bhujali, the entire prosecution case should be disbelieved. He further submitted that no prima facie case is made out against the petitioner and the averments made in the First Information Report that an amount of Rs.30,000/- has been taken away from the informant is not at all acceptable. The learned counsel further contended that the informant Pradumna Patra is a hardened criminal and he 4 has been set up by the rivals of the Sarathi Baba to institute a false case against the petitioner.
Mr. Dillip Kumar Mishra, learned Additional Government Advocate on the other hand relied upon the documents which have been annexed to the revision petition and submitted that at this stage, when prima facie case is clearly made out, it would not be proper to interfere with the impugned order. Learned counsel for the State placed that the statements of the witnesses which have been annexed to the revision petition to indicate the participation of the petitioner and other accused persons in the crime.
Considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the respective parties and on going through the First Information Report as well as the 161 Cr.P.C. statements annexed with this revision petition, I find that prima facie case for commission of offences under which the cognizance has been taken is clearly made out. "Taking of cognizance" means taking judicial notice of offences so as to initiate proceeding in respect of the alleged violation of law. At that stage, the Magistrate is restricted to find out whether there is prima facie case or not for proceeding against the accused. He should not enter into a detailed discussion of the merits or demerits of the case or meticulous examination of the case. Unless the order passed by 5 the Magistrate is perverse, wholly unreasonable or untenable in law or the view taken by the Magistrate is grossly erroneous or palpable misreading of records or exercised arbitrarily or capriciously, the revisional Court would not be justified in setting aside the order. The power of the revisional Court is never equated with that of an appellate Court. In view of the available materials on records, I am not inclined to invoke my revisional jurisdiction to interfere with the impugned order and accordingly, the revision petition being devoid of merits, stands dismissed.
At this stage, the learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner may be given an opportunity to raise all the points at the time of framing of charge. Needless to say, if any petition is filed by the petitioner for discharge before the learned Trial Court, the same shall be considered in accordance with law.
With the aforesaid observation, the criminal revision petition stands dismissed.
...............................
S. K. Sahoo, J.
Orissa High Court, Cuttack The 7th November, 2016/Sisir