Orissa High Court
22.03.2021 Heard Mr. Panigrahi vs Mr. Patnaik on 22 March, 2021
CRLMP No.83 of 2021
`
10 22.03.2021 Heard Mr. Panigrahi, learned counsel for the petitioner and
Mr. Patnaik, learned Addl. Standing Counsel.
According to Mr. Panigrahi, the petitioner is aggrieved by the
tardy manner in which investigation is going on in connection with
Jagatsingpur P.S. Case No.286 dated 13.11.2017 though it has
been registered for commission of offences under Sections
450/328/376(2)(j)/417/506/292-A/323/294/34 of the I.P.C. In
this connection, Mr. Panigrahi relies on Sub-Section-1-A of Section
173 of the Cr.P.C. which makes it clear that the investigation in
relation to the offence under Section 376 I.P.C. shall be completed
within two months from the date on which the information was
recorded by the O.I.C. of the police station. In such background, he
prays that a direction be issued to the opposite party no.4 to
complete the investigation within a specific time period. Further
according to him, the grievance of the petitioner is that after
registration of the F.I.R., the petitioner is living under constant
threat from the side of the accused persons and accordingly, he
prays that appropriate direction be issued to the opposite party
nos.1 to 6 for giving her adequate protection.
Mr. Patnaik, learned Addl. Standing Counsel on instruction
submits that in the meantime the principal accused Sk.Akram has
been arrested on 19.3.2021 and all efforts are on to complete the
investigation. With regard to prayer of getting protection, Mr. Patnaik
submits that for the said purpose, she should approach the
"Competent Authority" as constituted under the "Witness Protection
Scheme, 2019" as has been notified by the Government of Odisha
vide Extra-ordinary Gazette Notification No.1164 dated 6.7.2019 in
Rns.
tune with the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of
Mahender Chawla & others v. Union of India & others reported in
(2019) (I) OLR (SC) 126. According to him, since the petitioner is
the informant, she being a star witness in case of a future trial, she
can seek protection under the above noted scheme by filing an
appropriate application in the prescribed form before the "Competent
Authority" consisting of the learned District & Sessions Judge as
Chairman, head of the Police in the district as Member and head of
prosecution in the district as its Member Secretary. He also submits
that the said Scheme provides different types of protection measures
under Clause-7.
In such background, Mr. Panigrahi submits that the
petitioner may be granted liberty to approach the "Competent
Authority" for the purpose of getting protection.
Considering the submissions made, this Court grants liberty
to the petitioner to approach the "Competent Authority" under
"Witness Protection Scheme, 2019" in an appropriate manner. In
the event such a motion is made, the "Competent Authority" is
directed to take a decision on such motion in tune with the above
noted Scheme as expeditiously as possible. With regard to time
limit for completing the investigation, this Court directs the
opposite party no.4 i.e. I.I.C., Jagatsingpur Police Station to make
all efforts to complete the investigation in connection with the
above noted case within a period of four weeks from the date of
production of copy of this order in accordance with law, if there is
no other impediment.
The CRLMP is accordingly disposed of.
Parties may utilize the soft copy of this order available in the
High Court's Website or print out thereof at par with certified copy
in the manner prescribed, vide Court's Notice No.4587 dated
25.3.2020.
....................................
Biswajit Mohanty, J.
