Sri Sangram Kishore Mohanty vs State Of Odisha
2023 Latest Caselaw 8602 Ori

               IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
                         CRLMC No. 3166 of 2023
      Sri Sangram Kishore Mohanty          ....                    Petitioner
                                                Mr. K.K. Mishra, Advocate
                                       Versus
     1. State of Odisha
     2. Chittaranjan Sahu                  ....              Opposite Parties
                                                    Mr. R.K. Tripathy, ASC
             CORAM:
                       JUSTICE SAVITRI RATHO
                                       ORDER

04.08.2023 (Through hybrid mode) Order No.

04. CRLMC No. 3166 of 2023

1. This application under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing the F.I.R. dated 18.11.2022 in Chamakhandi Town P.S. Case No. 251 of 2022 registered under Sections 468, 471, 419, 420, 34 of I.P.C. corresponding to G.R. Case No.1214 of 2022.

2. Heard Mr. K.K. Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner.

3. Issue notice to the opp. parties. Notice on behalf of the opp. party no.1 is accepted by Mr. R.K. Tripathy, learned Addl. Standing Counsel for the State.

4. Requisites for issuance of notice to the opposite party no.2 through Registered Post with A.D shall be filed by 09.08.2023. The notice shall be made returnable within four weeks.

5. List this case on 03.10.2023.

........................ (Savitri Ratho) Judge P.T.O.

// 2 //

I.A. No. 2237 of 2022

05. This I.A. has been filed with the following prayer:

"Therefore, the petitioner, most humbly pray that this Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased to direct the investigating officer to issue notice u/s 41a of the Cr.P.C. while investing of the Champakhandi P.S. Case No. 251/22. Keeping in mind the law laid down in Arnesh Kumar and Satendra Kumar Antil vrs. CBI."

2. Mr. K.K. Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner relying on the decisions of the Supreme Court in the case of Satender Kumar Antil vrs. Central Bureau of Investigation & Another reported in 2023 Live Law (SC) 233 : 2023 SCC Online 452 and the case of Md. Asfak Alam vrs. The State of Jharkhand & Another (Criminal Appeal No (s).2207 of 2023 decided on 31.07.2023) submits that the prayer in the I.A. should be allowed.

3. The case of Satender Kumar Antil (Supra), relied on by Mr. K.K. Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner has no application to the present case as that was an order passed by the Supreme Court on 21.02.2023 dealing with compliance reports of different High Courts after its judgment in Satender Kumar Antil vs State : 2022 Live Law (SC) 577: (2022) 10 SCC 51 . In the latter case, taking note of numerous cases filed seeking bail after filing of final report, the Supreme Court had laid down the guidelines to be followed for consideration of applications for grant of bail and anticipatory bail.

4. In Md. Asfak Alam (Supra), the Supreme Court was considering the an appeal filed by an accused being aggrieved by

// 3 //

denial of anticipatory bail to him after submission of chargesheet and a further direction to surrender before the Court and seek regular bail. The Supreme Court, set aside the order of the High Court rejecting the prayer for bail and directing the petitioner therein to surrender and seek bail, observing that the court having regard to the nature of the offences, the allegations and the maximum sentence of the offences they were likely to carry, ought to have granted bail as a matter of course. It gave certain directions in order to ensure that police officers do not arrest accused unnecessarily and the Magistrates do not authorize detention casually and mechanically.

5. These decisions are not relevant for deciding the interim application. This CRLMC has been filed with a prayer (amended) to quash the FIR in Chamakhandi P.S. case No. 251 of 2022 dated 18.11.2022 corresponding to G.R. Case No.1214 of 2022 under Sections 468/ 417/419/420/34 I.P.C.

6. In view of the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Neeharika Infrastructure vs State of Maharashtra : 2021 SCC Online SC 315 and as the petitioner has the remedy to apply for anticipatory bail , the prayer in the interim application is misconceived .

7. The I.A. is accordingly dismissed.

8. Urgent certified copy of this order be granted on proper application.

Signature Not Verified ......................... Digitally Signed Signed by: PUSPANJALI MOHAPATRA (Savitri Ratho) Designation: Personal Assistant Reason: Authentication Location: Orissa High Court Judge puspa Date: 11-Aug-2023 18:00:53