Orissa High Court
Durga Charan Rout vs State Of Odisha & Another on 23 February, 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
CRLMC No.390 of 2023
Durga Charan Rout .... Petitioner
Mr. S.K. Nayak, Advocate
-Versus-
State of Odisha & Another .... Opposite Parties
Mr. S. Mishra,
Additional Standing Counsel for the State
CORAM:
MR. JUSTICE R.K. PATTANAIK
ORDER
23.02.2023
Order No.
01. 1. Heard Mr. S.K. Nayak, learned counsel for the petitioner
and Mr. S. Mishra, learned counsel appearing for the opposite party
No.1-State.
2. No notice is issued to opposite party No.2 since the matter
is disposed of at the stage of admission.
3. Prayer in the present case is for quashing of the impugned
order dated 14th July, 2022 passed in connection with G.R. Case
No. 253 of 2022 by the learned J.M.F.C., Aul on the ground stated
therein.
4. A copy of the F.I.R. is at Annexure-1.
5. Since the informant is not a party, learned counsel for the
petitioner seeks permission of the Court to implead him as opposite
party No.2 in court today, which is allowed.
6. The above impletion of informant as opposite party No.2 is
allowed to be carried out in the Court itself.
7. Mr. Nayak, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that a
civil depute is the root cause of such a report being lodged by the
informant, namely, Opposite Party No.2 by making false allegations
made therein and therefore, the criminal proceeding pending in the
court of learned J.M.F.C., Aul in G.R. Case No. 253 of 2022 should
be quashed.
8. Opposite Party No.3 is another accused along with the
petitioner.
9. The copy of the judgment dated 2nd May, 2017 in G.R. Case
No. 216 of 2011 as it Annexure-3 is referred to by the learned
counsel for the petitioner to submit that there was an earlier
incident in which opposite party No.2- the informant had lodged an
F.I.R against the petitioner with the local police but the petitioner
and two other accused persons including opposite party No.2 were
acquitted of the charges levelled against them.
10. Mr. Mishra, learned counsel for the State-opposite party
submits that on any such ground, the criminal proceeding pending
before the court of learned J.M.F.C., Aul may not be quashed, since
a prima facie case is made out from Annexure-1.
11. Gone though the contents of Annexure-1.
12. The Court finds that on an incident between the parties, the
opposite party No.2 lodged the F.I.R. The circumstances leading to
the lodging of the report by opposite party No.2 stand described in
Annexure-1. Since a prima facie case is made out considering
Annexure-1, the proceeding pending before the learned court
below, as according to the humble view of the Court, cannot be
quashed. That apart, the ground which has been raised made by the
learned counsel for the petitioner is purely factual which needs
determination on receiving evidence by the learned court below. In
any case, the Court is of the view that no case is made out for
interference. At the same time, the court is of the opinion that if so
advised, the petitioner may seek discharge during inquiry before the
learned Court below.
13. In course of hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner also
submits that if the Court is not inclined to quash the criminal
proceeding, the petitioner may be granted liberty to apply for
discharge before the learned court below, which the court is inclined
to.
14. Accordingly it is ordered.
15. In the result, the CRLMC stands disposed of with a liberty
allowed in favour of the petitioner to seek discharge during inquiry
in connection with the G.R. Case No. 253 of 2022 pending before
the learned court below and on such an application moved by him,
the learned J.M.F.C., Aul shall consider the same and pass order
thereon in accordance with law.
16. A certified copy of this order be granted as per rules.
(R.K. Pattanaik)
Judge
Balaram
