Orissa High Court
Rabi @ Umakanta Barik vs State Of Odisha on 9 November, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
CRLMC No. 2672 of 2022
Rabi @ Umakanta Barik .... Petitioner
Mr. Biswa Kumar Mishra, Advocate
-Versus-
State of Odisha .... Opposite Party
Mr. Tapas Kumar Praharaj, SC,
CORAM:
MR. JUSTICE R.K. PATTANAIK
ORDER
09.11.2022
Order No.
03. 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.T.K.
Praharaj, learned counsel for the State.
2. Instant petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. at the behest of
the petitioner for quashing of the criminal proceeding in connection
with S.T. Case No.119 of 2022 arising out of G.R. Case No.56 of
2022(A) pending in the file of learned J.M.F.C., Daspalla on the
ground that another accused, namely, Ranjan Kumar Sahoo was
acquitted of the charge under Section 302 IPC in S.T. Case No.02 of
2010 by a judgment dated 23rd February, 2012 passed by the
learned Sessions Judge, Nayagarh.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that after a full-
fledged trial, the other accused was acquitted of the charge under
Section 302 read with 34 of IPC in S.T. Case No.02 of 2010 which is
with reference to the evidence of the materials witnesses, copies of
whose depositions are at Annexure-3. It is submitted that none of
the witnesses lead any such adverse evidence. In fact, according to
the learned counsel for the petitioner on the strength of evidence
such witnesses though they were not hostile, since there is acquittal
vis-à-vis co-accused, no purpose would be served in continuance of
the criminal proceeding against the petitioner. In other words,
learned counsel for the petitioner considering the evidence on
record in S.T. No.02 of 2010, the criminal proceeding which is
pending against the petitioner in S.T. No.119 of 2022 should be
quashed, which is objected to by learned counsel for the State on
the ground that one cannot anticipate the nature of evidence which
might be received during the trial corresponding to G.R. Case No.56
of 2006(A) which is lying in the file of learned J.M.F.C., Daspalla
pending commitment to the court of Sessions.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in the
meantime, the case has been committed to the Sessions court and as
per his instruction, no charge has yet been framed.
5. The Court perused the depositions of the prosecution
witnesses in S.T. No.02 of 2010. On a reading of the depositions,
the Court finds that there is no direct evidence to implicate any of
the accused persons including from the material witnesses, namely,
the mother and brother of the deceased referring to which learned
counsel for the petitioner submits that it is a fit case where inherent
jurisdiction should be exercised to quash the criminal proceeding
which is unlikely yield any result.
6. However having regard to the nature of allegations and the
charge under Section 302 IPC read with Section 34 IPC, the Court is
of the view that the petitioner should face the trial with the
prosecution evidence on record at least ensuring examination of the
materials witnesses, namely, the informant and others of the family
of the deceased. In other words, the Court is of the opinion that the
petitioner should be granted liberty to renew the prayer after
receipt of evidence by the Sessions court on examination of the
material witnesses which would rather serve the purpose and meet
the end of justice. Accordingly, it is ordered.
7. In the result, the CRLMC stands disposed of with liberty in
favour of the petitioner to renew the prayer challenging the criminal
proceeding in future after examination of material witnesses in S.T.
Case No.2 of 2010 corresponding to G.R. Case No.56 of 2006(A)
pending in the file of learned Sessions Judge, Nayagarh.
8. Issue urgent certified copy of this order as per rules.
(R.K. Pattanaik)
Judge
U.K.Sahoo
