Orissa High Court
Jasabanta Pradhan vs State Of Odisha on 5 August, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
CRLMC No.4691 of 2015
Jasabanta Pradhan .... Petitioner
Mr. A. Das, Advocate
-Versus-
State of Odisha .... Opposite Party
Mr. M. Mishra, ASC
CORAM:
MR. JUSTICE R.K. PATTANAIK
ORDER
Order 05.08.2022
No.
08. 1 Learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for
the State.
2. The present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is at the
behest of the petitioner for quashing of the criminal proceeding in
G.R. Case No. 129(A) of 2000 arising out of G. Udayagiri P.S. Case
No.36 of 2000 pending in the file of learned J.M.F.C. G. Udayagiri
and discharge him from the alleged charges on the grounds inter alia
that the same is expedient in the interest of justice.
3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that
the case which was initiated against the principal accused stands
disposed of in S.T. No.19 of 2009 arising out of in G.R. Case
No.129 (A) of 2000 whereby he has been acquitted of the charges
under Sections 376 and 120(B) IPC and while contending so, Mr.
Das referred to Annexure-2 which is copy of the said judgment. It is
further contended by Mr. Das that in view of the order of the
acquittal vis-à-vis the principal accused, namely, Jatindra Pradhan,
who was alleged of being responsible for the sexual assault against
the victim no fruitful purpose would be served to continue with the
/
criminal proceeding against the petitioner who is alleged of being an
abettor. It is also submitted by Mr. Das that the victim who lodged
the FIR turned hostile during trial and in that respect, made the
Court to go through the relevant portion of the judgment in S.T.
Case No.19 of 2009.
4. Learned counsel for the State admits the fact that the victim
had in fact been turned hostile during trial in S.T. Case No.19 of
2009 and fairly concedes to the suggestion of the Court that in view
of such order of acquittal of the principal accused, no real purpose
may be served to continue with the prosecution against the
petitioner.
5. The Court perused the judgment at Annexure-2. On a
reading of the aforesaid judgment, the Court finds that the principal
accused, namely, Jitendra Pradhan was made to face trial for
charges under Sections 376 and 120(B) IPC with regard to the
alleged incident dated 25th May, 2000 during which the victim
alleged him of having sexually assaulted her. In fact, from the
judgment, the Court finds that the victim was examined as P.W.2
and she rather expressed her ignorance about the incident and also
declined to identify the principal accused and though she was cross-
examined under Section 154 Cr.P.C. but nothing was elicited to
bring home charges against the said accused. It further appears that
two more witnesses were examined as P.W.1 and P.W.2 but the
learned trial court did not find their evidence to be of any help to
the prosecution in view of the testimony of victim and ultimately
passed the order of acquittal. In so far as the present case is
concerned, the petitioner is alleged to have assisted the main
accused during the alleged incident. However, in view of the nature
of evidence received from the victim and also other two witnesses
and in view of the fact that the principal accused was acquitted of
the charges including the offence under Section 376 IPC in S.T. Case
/
No.19 of 2009, the Court is of the view that no purpose would be
served to continue the proceeding against the petitioner, rather, it
would be a futile exercise and even be an abuse of process of law.
6. Being alive to the settled position of law as laid down by
the Supreme Court time and again and most prominently in a
judgment the case of State of Haryana and others Vrs. Ch. Bhajan
Lal and others 1990 SCR Supp.(3) 259, wherein, it has been held
that jurisdiction under Articles 226 of the Constitution of India and
Section 482 Cr.P.C. may be exercised in certain cases depending on
the facts and circumstances of the each particular case in order to
meet the interest of justice, the Court is of the view that since the
principal accused has been acquitted on the strength of hostile
evidence received from the victim and others, the criminal
proceeding as against the petitioner in G.R. Case No.129(A) of 2000
should be quashed and accordingly, it is ordered.
7. In the result, the CRLMC stands allowed. As a necessary
corollary, the criminal proceeding in G.R. Case No.129(A) of 2000
arising out of G. Udayagiri P.S. Case No.36 of 2000 pending in the
file of learned J.M.F.C. G. Udayagiri is hereby quashed.
(R.K. Pattanaik)
Judge
TUDU
