Orissa High Court
Jyoti Ranjan Mishra Alias Happy vs State Of Orissa on 27 November, 2017
Author: S. K. Sahoo
Bench: S.K. Sahoo
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA: CUTTACK
CRLMC No. 1767 Of 2005
An application under section 482 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 in connection with G.R. Case No.2256 of 2004
pending on the file of S.D.J.M., Bhubaneswar.
----------------------------
Jyoti Ranjan Mishra
@ Happy ......... Petitioner
-Versus-
State of Orissa ......... Opposite party
For Petitioner: - Mr. Samarendra Mohanty
For Opposite Party: - Mr. Prem Kumar Pattnaik
Addl. Govt. Advocate
-----------------------------
P R E S E N T:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.K. SAHOO
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date of Hearing and Judgment: 27.11.2017
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
S. K. SAHOO, J.Heard Mr. Samarendra Mohanty, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Prem Kumar Pattnaik, learned Addl. Govt. Advocate for the State.
The petitioner Jyoti Ranjan Mishra @ Happy in this application under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 has challenged the impugned order dated 29.10.2004 2 passed by the learned S.D.J.M., Bhubaneswar in taking cognizance of the offences under sections 363/342/379/323/506/34 of the Indian Penal Code and issuance of process against him.
The first information report was lodged by the victim Balunkeswar Mohapatra before the Inspector in charge of Mancheswar police station on 23.07.2004 wherein he has stated that on that day at about 10.00 a.m. he had come to C.V. Raman I.T.I. to attend his examination and near the boundary wall of the I.T.I., the accused Biswajit Chhotray along with three others called him and thereafter, the accused persons took him forcibly to Prasanti Vihar and wrongfully confined him in a room and he was assaulted with iron rod and the accused persons took away Rs.500/- from his pocket, cut his hair and also took some of his signatures in blank papers after assaulting him and threatened him with dire consequence not to disclose the occurrence before anybody. The accused Biswajit Chhotray took the informant in his motor cycle and dropped him at Rasulgarh. The informant after returning home, disclosed the incident before his father and others and accordingly, the F.I.R. was lodged.
Surendra Pradhan, A.S.I. of Police attached to Mancheswar police station investigated the case and finding 3 prima facie case against the petitioner as well as co-accused persons Biswajit Chhotray, Debasish Behera @ Tukuna and Kanua Kane, submitted charge sheet and on the basis of such charge sheet, the impugned order was passed.
It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that even though the first information report is silent about the involvement of the petitioner in the crime but all the same, the informant has stated the name of the petitioner in his statement recorded under section 161 Cr.P.C. which appears to be an afterthought one. It is further submitted that other witnesses have not implicated the petitioner and therefore, the continuance of the proceeding on the basis of such charge sheet is illegal and the impugned order so far as the petitioner is concerned should be quashed.
Mr. Prem Kumar Pattnaik, learned Addl. Government Advocate for the State on the other hand submitted that since the informant has stated the name of the petitioner in the 161 Cr.P.C. statement to be an associate of the main accused Biswajit Chhotray and attributed specific overt act against him, at this stage, the criminal proceeding should not be quashed. He further contended that merely because the name of the petitioner does not find place in the first information report, it is 4 not a ground to quash the proceeding as the F.I.R. cannot be said to be an encyclopedia of the case.
Adverting the contentions raised by the learned counsels for the respective parties and after going through the case records which was called for, I find that except the informant Balunkeswar Mohapatra, nobody has stated about the involvement of the petitioner in the alleged crime. It seems that Balunkeswar Mohapatra was aware about the name of the petitioner and accordingly, he has stated his name in his 161 Cr.P.C. statement but most peculiarly when he lodged the F.I.R. before Mancheswar Police Station on the very day of occurrence, he has not named the petitioner. He has only named Biswajit Chhotray and stated that three other persons were his associates. When on the detailed written report presented by the informant, the case was instituted, the absence of the name of the petitioner in the first information report can be a factor which becomes relevant in view of section 11 of the Evidence Act.
In view of the available materials on records, I am of the humble view that the chance of conviction of the petitioner is bleak and therefore, no useful purpose would be served in allowing the proceeding to continue. Accordingly, I am inclined to accept the prayer made by the learned counsel for the petitioner 5 and quash the impugned order dated 29.10.2004 so far as the petitioner is concerned.
In the result, the CRLMC application is allowed. The lower Court record be sent back to the learned S.D.J.M., Bhubaneswar immediately.
................................
S. K. Sahoo, J.
Orissa High Court, Cuttack The 27th November, 2017/Sukanta/Sisir