Orissa High Court
Manish Agarwal vs State Of Odisha & Another on 22 June, 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
CRLMC Nos.551/2023 & 922/2023
(Applications under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure)
CRLMC No.551 OF 2023
Manish Agarwal ... Petitioner
-versus-
State of Odisha & another ... Opposite Parties
Advocates appeared in the case through hybrid mode:
For Petitioner : Mr.Millan Kanungo,
Sr.Advocate.
Mr. Yuvraj Parekh,
Advocate
-versus-
For Opposite Party
No.1 : Mr. T.K.Praharaj,
Standing Counsel
For Opposite Party
No.2 : None
Page 1 of 30
CRLMC No.922 OF 2023
V. Venu @ Veliseti Benu
and others ... Petitioners
-versus-
State of Odisha & another ... Opposite Parties
Advocates appeared in the case through hybrid mode:
For Petitioner : Mr.Millan Kanungo,
Sr.Advocate.
Mr. Yuvraj Paresh,
Advocate
-versus-
For Opposite Party
No.1 : Mr. T.K.Praharaj,
Standing Counsel
For Opposite Party
No.2 : None
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM:
JUSTICE SASHIKANTA MISHRA
JUDGMENT
22.6.2023.
Sashikanta Mishra,J. Common questions of law and fact are
involved in both these applications filed under Section
482 of Cr.P.C. Thus, both were heard together and are
being disposed of by this common judgment.
2. The Petitioners are accused in G.R. Case
No.850/2020 corresponding to Malkangiri P.S. Case
No.401/2020 pending in the Court of learned S.D.J.M.,
Malkangiri. In the present applications, they seek to
challenge the order dated 19th December, 2022 passed
by learned S.D.J.M., in taking cognizance of the
offences under Sections 302/506/201/204 read with
Section 120-B/34 of the I.P.C. They further challenge
the order dated 11th January, 2023 passed by learned
S.D.J.M., directing the complainant to file requisites
and the summons dated 13th January, 2023 issued by
the learned S.D.J.M. to them.
Facts
3. One Deba Narayan Panda (deceased) was working
as Personal Assistant to the then Collector, Malkangiri
(Petitioner in CRLMC No.551/2023). He went missing
on 27th May, 2019 while on duty. On being informed,
the I.I.C. of Malkangiri P.S. made a Station Diary Entry
vide SDE No.78/2019 followed by search for the
missing person. On the next day, i.e. on 28th
December, 2019, the dead body of the deceased was
recovered from the Satiguda dam site by the fire
personnel. Accordingly, Malkangiri P.S. U.D. Case
No.44/2019 was registered on the basis of written
report of one Durga Madhab Panda, elder brother of
the deceased. In course of enquiry, inquest was held
and post mortem was conducted by a team of doctors.
The Post Mortem report disclosed the cause of death as
ante-mortem drowning and its complications. It also
revealed that the dead body did not have any injury or
mark of violence. The viscera report indicated that no
poisonous compound, alcohol and drugs could be
detected.
4. While the matter stood thus, after about a year i.e.
on 13th November, 2020 the wife of the deceased
(present Opposite Party No.2) filed a complaint being
I.C.C. No.20/2020 in the Court of S.D.J.M., Malkangiri
alleging therein that on the date of occurrence i.e. on
27th May, 2019, her husband had gone to the
residence office of the Collector at about 7.30 A.M. and
stayed there for nearly half an hour and returned.
Again at about 10 A.M., he went to the residence of the
Collector and did not come back thereafter. On the
next day the dead body was fished out from the waters
of Satiguda Dam. It was thereafter, alleged that
Manish Agarwal (Petitioner in CRLMC No.551/2023)
was responsible for death of the deceased.
Learned S.D.J.M. forwarded the complaint to the
I.I.C. of Malkangiri to register the F.I.R. and to conduct
investigation as per Section 156 (3) of the Cr.P.C.
Basing on such order, Malkangiri P.S. Case No.1 dated
28th January, 2021 was registered. Upon completion of
investigation, the investigating officer taking note of
several factors including the post mortem and viscera
reports and the statement of witnesses held that no
foul play was involved in the death of the deceased and
that the accused persons had not committed any
offence. Rather, investigation revealed that the
deceased was upset in his service matters and
committed suicide by jumping in the Satiguda Dam.
Thus, final report was submitted as mistake of fact.
5. The present Opposite Party No.2 filed a protest
petition on 17th December, 2022 against submission of
the aforementioned final report by Police. In the said
protest petition, she basically alleged that the matter
had not been properly investigated and that the
involvement of the Collector (Petitioner in CRLMC
No.551/2023) in the death of the deceased was being
deliberately kept under cover. Learned S.D.J.M.
recorded the initial statement of the complainant-
Opposite Party No.2 under Section 200 of Cr.P.C. and
basing on such statement and other materials on
record, took cognizance of the aforementioned offences
by order dated 19th December, 2022 and postponed
issue of process as per Section 202(a) of Cr.P.C. by
deciding to call upon the complainant to produce all
her witnesses. Accordingly, four witnesses were
examined on behalf of the complainant whereupon
learned S.D.J.M. directed the complainant to file
requisites by order dated 11th January, 2023. Finally,
on 13th January, 2023, learned S.D.J.M. issued
summons to the Petitioners to appear before him.
6. It would be relevant to mention at the outset that
the Petitioner (Manish Agarwal) had earlier approached
this Court in CRLMC No.1683/2020 against initiation
of the criminal proceeding against him, but in view of
the submission of final report as mistake of fact, he
filed a Memo not pressing the CRLMC. Accordingly, by
order dated 15th November, 2022 passed by a co-
ordinate Bench of this Court, the CRLMC was
dismissed as not pressed.
7. Heard Mr. Millan Kanungo, learned Senior Counsel
with Mr. Yuvraj Parekh, learned counsel for the
Petitioners and Mr. T.K.Praharaj, learned Standing
counsel for the State.
Submissions
8. Be it noted that there is sufficient service of notice,
there was no appearance from the side of Opposite
Party No.2-complainant. However, she filed an
objection affidavit, which was taken on record and
considered at the time of hearing of the petition.
9. Mr. Kanungo opens his argument by submitting
that criminal case being a serious matter cannot be
initiated against a person as a matter of course.
Moreover, criminal proceedings involving grave
offences like murder, cannot be taken lightly and
therefore, unless there are at least prima facie
materials to show involvement of a person in the
alleged occurrence, the Courts should be slow to act
upon any complaint/allegation made by any person in
this regard. Referring to the facts of the case Mr.
Kanungo submits that the case of the complainant,
even if accepted lock, stock and barrel, would not
reveal even a shred of allegation against the Petitioners
as having had any role to play in the death of the
deceased. All that can be discerned from the
complaint/protest petition, documents enclosed
thereto and the initial statement of the complainant as
also that of the other witnesses examined under
Section 202(2) of Cr.P.C. is, the deceased was mentally
upset because of his likely transfer to another Office
from the Collectorate. There is also some material to
show that he had been issued with show cause notices
in the past by the previous Collectors for misconduct
as also by Manish Agarwal (Petitioner in CRLMC
No.551/2023) as Collector, Malkangiri. The
Investigating Officer took note of the same and was of
the considered view that the deceased was upset
because of his service related issues. But there being
absolutely no material to suggest any kind of foul
play, the Investigating Officer rightly concluded that
the case was one of suicide.
Mr.Kanungo further argues that even accepting
that the deceased had committed suicide being upset,
still there is absolutely no material much less
acceptable evidence to even prima facie show that the
Petitioners had abetted the same. Thus, according to
Mr. Kanungo, no case is made out against the
Petitioners. Rather, it is evident that the complainant
has filed the case solely with the intention of causing
harassment to the Petitioners. The very fact that the
complaint (I.C.C.No.20/2020) was filed nearly one year
after the death of the deceased shows that the same
was a product of due deliberation and a calculated
move to rope in the Petitioners somehow into the case.
10. Mr. T.K.Praharaj, learned Standing Counsel for
the State, submits that even though final report was
reported showing mistake of fact, it was open to the
learned S.D.J.M., to act upon the protest petition filed
by the complainant. To such extent therefore, no
illegality can be attributed to the Court below.
Secondly, the procedure envisaged under Chapter-XV
relating to complaint was scrupulously followed by the
Court below by postponing the issuance of process. It
is only after examination of the witnesses produced by
the complainant that the Court below deemed it fit to
issue summons to the Petitioners. On merits, Mr.
Praharaj fairly concedes that the investigation did not
find any evidence of foul play, rather the conclusive
opinion of the autopsy surgeon was to the effect that
the deceased had committed suicide. He further
submits that whether the Petitioners had any role to
play in the suicide committed by the deceased is a
matter that can be ascertained only from the evidence
on record during trial, but not at this stage.
11. The complainant (Opposite Party No.2) in her
objection affidavit has stated that Manish Agarwal,
being a Joint Secretary rank I.A.S. Officer has
attempted to hoodwink the Court by acting in
connivance of Government agencies and managed to
get a final report submitted in the complaint (I.C.C.
No.20/2020) filed by her. She has further stated that
one Santosh Panigrahi, an eye witness to the murder
was working as personal cook of Manish Agarwal but
he died mysteriously without any illness on 20th
December, 2022, which was reported by her to the
Malkangiri P.S., but no action was taken on such
complaint. The S.P., Malkangiri had acted in unison
with the Petitioners to suppress the crime and for
destruction of evidence and to threaten the witnesses.
Analysis
12. Having regard to the facts and contentions raised
by the parties as noted in the preceding paragraphs,
this Court, before delving into the merits thereof would
like to keep the position of law relating to interference
by the High Court in exercise of power under Section
482 of Cr.P.C. with the proceedings pending before the
Court below in perspective. In this regard, this Court
can do no better than to refer to the celebrated
decision of the Apex Court rendered in the case of
State Of Haryana And Ors vs Ch. Bhajan Lal And
Ors; 1992 AIR 604, wherein the following principles
were laid down;
"(a) where the allegations made in the
First Information Report or the
complaint, even if they are taken at
their face value and accepted in their
entirety do not prima facie constitute
any offence or make out a case
against the accused;
(b) where the allegations in the First
Information Report and other
materials, if any, accompanying the
F.I.R. do not disclose a cognizable
offence, justifying an investigation by
police officers under Section 156(1) of
the Code except under an order of a
Magistrate within the purview
of Section 155(2) of the Code;
(c) where the uncontroverted
allegations made in the FIR or
'complaint and the evidence collected
in support of the same do not
disclose the commission of any
offence and make out a case against
the accused;
(d) where the allegations in the FIR do
not constitute a cognizable offence
but constitute only a non-cognizable
offence, no investigation is permitted
by a police officer without an order of
a Magistrate as contemplated
under Section 155(2) of the Code;
(e) where the allegations made in the
FIR or complaint are so absurd and
inherently improbable on the basis of
which no prudent person can ever
reach a just conclusion that there is
sufficient ground for proceeding
against the accused;
(f) where there is an express legal bar
engrafted in any of the provisions of
the Code or the concerned Act (under
which a criminal proceeding is
instituted) to the institution and
continuance of the proceedings
and/or where there is a specific
provision in the Code or the
concerned Act, providing efficacious
redress for the grievance of the
aggrieved party;
(g) where a criminal proceeding is
manifestly attended with mala fide
and/or where the proceeding is
maliciously instituted with an ulterior
motive for wreaking vengeance on the
accused and with a view to spite him
due to private and personal grudge."
13. Further, the ratio of the case of Pepsi Foods Ltd.
v. Special Judicial Magistrate; reported in (1998) 5
SCC 749 is highly relevant in the facts of the present
case wherein the following was observed by the Apex
Court;
"Summoning of an accused in a criminal
case is a serious matter. Criminal law
cannot be set into motion as a matter of
course. it is not that the complainant has
to bring only two witnesses to support
his allegations in the complaint to have
the criminal law set into motion. The
order of the magistrate summoning the
accused must reflect that he has applied
his mind to the facts of the case and the
law applicable thereto. He has to
examine the nature of allegations made
in the complaint and the evidence both
oral and documentary in support thereof
and would that be sufficient for the
complainant to succeed in bringing
charge home to the accused. It is not that
the Magistrate is a silent spectator at the
time of recording of preliminary evidence
before summoning of the accused.
Magistrate has to carefully scrutinise the
evidence brought on record and may
even himself put questions to the
complainant and his witnesses to elicit
answers to find out the truthfulness of
the allegations or otherwise and then
examine if any offence is prima facie
committed by all or any of the accused."
(emphasis supplied)
14. Whether a complaint has been frivolously made or
not has to be determined on the basis of the material
placed before the Court by the complainant. In the
case of Chandra Deo Singh v. Prokash Ch. Bose and
another; reported in AIR 1963 SC 1430, the Apex
Court held as follows;
"7. ...No doubt, one of the objects,
behind the provisions of Section 202
Cr.P.C. is to enable the Magistrate to
scrutinise carefully the allegations
made in the complaint with a view to
prevent a person named therein as
accused from being called upon to
face an obviously frivolous complaint.
But there is also another object
behind this provision and it is to find
out what material there is to support
the allegations made in the
complaint. It is the bounden duty of
the Magistrate while making an
enquiry to elicit all facts not merely
with a view to protect the interests of
an absent accused person, but also
with a view to bring to book a person
or persons against whom grave
allegations are made. Whether the
complaint is frivolous or not has, at
that stage, necessarily to be
determined on the basis of the
material placed before him by the
complainant....."
(emphasis supplied)
15. Both the cases referred above were taken note of
by the Apex Court in the case of Krishna Lal Chawla
and others vs. State of U.P. and another passed in
Crl. Appeal No.283/2021 decided on 8.3.2021.
Summing of the position of law, the Apex Court held as
follows;
"Thus, it is clear that, on receipt of a
private complaint, the Magistrate must
first, scrutinize it to examine if the
allegations made in the private complaint,
inter alia, smack of an instance of
frivolous litigation; and second, examine
and elicit the material that supports the
case of the complainant."
16. The facts of the case may now be examined in the
light of the above propositions.
There is no dispute that the deceased Deba
Narayan Panda left home for the house of the Collector
on 27th December, 2019 at 10 A.M. and did not return.
A missing report was lodged at Malkangiri P.S. which
led to a search being conducted. In course of search
his slippers were found in the Satiguda Dam site. On
the next day, i.e. on 28th December, 2019 at about 11
A.M. his dead body was fished out from the waters of
Satiguda Dam by fire personnel. A U.D. Case was
registered on the written report of the elder brother of
the deceased. Significantly, at that stage, no allegation
of foul play was made. As to the nature and cause of
the death, the post mortem report, which is available
in the case record, categorically reveals that there is no
external injury of any form detected on body. The
following was found on dissection;
"(i)Blood stained froth coming from the
mouth and nostrils,
(ii)larynx, trachea and bronchi, congested
and contained blood stained froth
(iii)Both the lungs are congested,
voluminous and edematous,
(iv)Stomach contained approximate,
200cc of yellowish coloured fluid.
(iv)Heart and large blood vessels are
intact.
(v) Brain congested.
(vi)All other internal organs are congested,
wrinkled palm and sole, and goosed skin
present."
The opinion of the autopsy surgeon is as follows;
"In the view of the case history
circumstantial evidences and mortuary
findings, to the best of my knowledge and
belief. I opined as follows. As per
preliminary examination, the above
findings are ante mortem in nature and
suggestive of features of ante mortem
drowning. However, to rule out the
concurrent poisoning, routine viscera are
preserved and handed over to Police
officials for onward transmission to S.F.L.,
Rarulgarh, Bubaneswar.
17. The report of the examination of the viscera
conducted by State Foreignsic Science Laboratory,
Rasulgarh, revealed as follows:
"Ethyl alcohol, Methyl alcohol,
Barbiturates, Benzodiazepine groups of
drugs, Insecticidal, Alkaloidal,
Rodenticidal, Herbicidal and Metallic
poison could not be detected in the
visceral matters of the deceased
described above."
18. The I.O. sought for opinion of the ADMO (Medical)
D.H.H, Malkangiri by referring to the post mortem
examination report and viscera examination report on
the following narrations;
"(i) Actual cause of death taking into
consideration of the scientific
examination reports.
(ii) As per P.M. examination report,
probable cause of death has been
mentioned as ante mortem drowning.
Hence based on the chemical
examination reports, circumstances in
which dead body was found and
enquiry conducted till date, kindly opine
whether the drowning is suicidal or
homicidal."
19. The ADMO submitted his final opinion as follows;
"Death of deceased is due to asphyxia
as a result of automatic drowning
which is more in favour of suicidal
manner whereas accidental drowning
may not be ruled out by taking into
consideration the P.M. examination,
scientific report and circumstances
reveals so far. However, it is subjected
to facts and circumstances to be
enquired by Enquiring Officer.
20. The I.O. sought for opinion from an Asst.
Professor, Dr. Bhakta Narayan Munda, Department of
F.M.T of S.L.N. Medical College and Hospital, Koraput.
He gave his opinion as follows:
(i) The external and internal findings
described in the P.M. report are consistent
with the features of ante mortem
drowning.
(ii) Considering the scientific examination
reports i.e. chemical examination report of
viscera and diatom test report and the
P.M. findings, it can be opined that cause
of death of the deceased is due to ante
mortem drowning and its complications
thereof.
(iii)Taking into consideration, the P.M.
findings described in the P.M. report,
chemical examination report, diatom test
report, query opinion by the primary P.M.
conducting doctors and the details of the
circumstantial evidences given by the
E.O., it can be opined that with all
probabilities, manner of death of the
deceased in the instant case appears to
be suicidal in nature in the given
circumstances."
Thus, from the above medical evidence, it is
clear that there is no mention of the cause of death
being homicidal in nature.
21. Notwithstanding the medical evidence the other
materials are also to be looked into. This Court
therefore, carefully perused the complaint Petition in
I.C.C. No.20/2020 filed by the complainant (Opposite
Party No.2). Paragraph-F of the complaint petition
under the heading "Gist of the case" contains as many
as 79 paragraphs. Reference has been made to the
Petitioners in some of the paragraphs. This Court has
gone through each of the paragraphs of the complaint
petition. There is not a shred of allegation therein that
the accused-Petitioners had intentionally caused the
death of the deceased. The admitted case of the
complainant, which is well supported by the medical
evidence, is that the deceased had died due to
drowning. But the complainant does not allege at all
that the Petitioners were responsible for the drowning
of her husband in the Satiguda Dam. The only
allegation against the Petitioner-Manish Agarwal is
that on 4th April, 2018 he had called the deceased in
the evening to his residence office for some urgent
work and after completion thereof, he had asked him a
confidential question as to who are people or projects
or agencies who contributed money to the Collector
either on monthly basis or on work to work basis. The
Collector also wanted to know who were the people
who usually did the collection on his behalf. The
Petitioner also allegedly asked the deceased whether he
can take up the responsibility of collecting
funds/percentage/commission on behalf of the
Collector. When the deceased expressed his lack of
information regarding collection of funds and his
inability to make such collection, the Petitioner was
visibly upset.
22. Coming to the date of occurrence, it is stated that
the deceased went to the Collector's residence at 10.10
A.M. and thereafter did not return. Some post
occurrence conduct of the Collector have been
highlighted. What is important to note is, there is
simply no allegation which would even remotely link
the Petitioners with the death of the deceased. In the
protest petition also, apart from alleging that the
Petitioner-Manish Agarwal had used his position to
suppress relevant facts during investigation, there is
no allegation of the Petitioners having caused the
death of the deceased. The initial statement of the
complainant, which runs into 42 paragraphs is also
entirely silent as to the exact role played by the
Petitioners in the death of the deceased.
23. Thus, neither the medical evidence nor the
complaint petition, protest petition, initial statement of
the complainant as also that of the other witnesses,
contain, prima facie, any evidence to even suggest that
the death was homicidal in nature. Unless, this
foundational fact is established it would be futile to
travel further to ascertain the identity of the culprit. It
goes without saying that there can be no culprit
without a crime. This Court, therefore finds that there
exist no materials to prima facie suggest commission of
the offence under Section 302 I.P.C.
24. However, the complaint petition, protest petition,
initial statement of the complainant and the statement
of other witnesses as also objection affidavit filed
before this Court contain allegations against the
Petitioners of having instigated, by their conduct, the
deceased to commit suicide. To amplify, the complaint
petition refers to show cause notice issued by the
Collector (Petitioner in CRLMC No.551/2023) for
certain misconduct and purported attempts made by
the Collector as well as the co-accused V. Venu @
Veliseti Benu (Petitioner No.1 in CRLMC No.922/2023)
to have the Petitioner removed from the post of P.A. to
Collector. It is also alleged that an Ex-M.P. had given
an interview on 22nd December, 2019 making
allegations of corruption against the Petitioner-Manish
Agarwal, which purportedly made him thirsty for
revenge. Again on 24th December, 2019 Bhagawan
Panigrahi (Petitioner No.3 in CRLMC No.922/2023)
met the Collector confidentially in his residential office
as witnessed by the deceased. On the same day
another show cause notice was issued by the Collector
to the deceased purportedly on the instigation of said
Bhagawan Panigrahi. On the next day, Bhagawan
Panigrahi himself came to the house of the deceased
and informed that the Collector was not satisfied with
his work and wanted him to join in place of the
deceased. According to one of the witnesses examined
by the I.O., the Collector had slapped the deceased in
the presence of his (Collector's) wife on the date of
occurrence. The deceased went missing shortly
thereafter.
According to the complainant, the aforesaid
conduct of the Collector and that of V. Venu @ Veliseti
Benu and Bhagawan Panigrahi caused depression in
the mind of the deceased to such extent that it led him
to end his own life. In other words, the Collector and
the other three persons abetted the suicide committed
by the deceased.
25. Significantly, the charge sheet itself mentions,
inter alia, "xxx The investigation has thus reveals that
deceased Deba Narayan Panda was upset in his
service matters and he committed suicide by jumping
in the Satiguda Dam.xxx". So even the prosecution
accepts that the deceased was upset because of his
service matters which was strong enough to lead him
to commit suicide.
It would be useful at this stage to refer to
Section 306 of I.P.C. which reads as follows;
"306. Abetment of suicide.--If any person
commits suicide, whoever abets the
commission of such suicide, shall be
punished with imprisonment of either
description for a term which may extend to
ten years, and shall also be liable to fine."
26. In the case of Chitresh Kumar Chopra vs. State
(Govt. of NCT of Delhi), reported in (2009) 16 SCC
605 as well in the case of Parveen Pradhan vs. State
of Uttaranchal, reported in (2013) 1 SCC (Cri) 146,
the apex Court held that to constitute 'instigation', a
person who instigates another has to provoke, incite,
urge or encourage the doing of an act by the other by
'goading' or 'urging forward'.
27. Whether the aforementioned conduct of the
accused persons would amount to instigation or not
can obviously be determined from the evidence
adduced during trial but not at this preliminary stage.
It is to be noted that investigation has not suggested
any plausible reason for the deceased other than being
upset because of his service matters to contemplate
taking the extreme step. Significantly, the I.O. in his
attempt to ascertain the reason of suicide, examined
one Basudeb Mohapatra, a co-villager of the deceased.
Said witness categorically denied that the deceased
could not have been upset because of inability to repay
land loans incurred by him. Thus, there is simply no
other reason put forth by the prosecution to explain
the act of suicide except that he was mentally upset
because of his service matters.
28. Coming to the offence under Section 506 of I.P.C.
there is not a whisper of allegation as to any threat
being held out by the Petitioners to the deceased.
Neither the words used nor any other material is
available on record to show that the Petitioners had
threatened the deceased to either cause his death or
hurt to him. Issuance of show cause notices cannot be
treated as threats as they are administrative actions
permissible to be taken under the relevant service
rules by a superior authority against his subordinate.
29. Coming to the offences under Sections 201/204
of I.P.C. it has been suggested, though not expressly
that the death of the deceased was caused by foul play
and such fact was attempted to be suppressed/hidden
by drowning his dead body in the Satiguda Dam
waters. However, in view of what has been discussed
herein before in detail regarding the cause and nature
of death of the deceased as also absence of any
external injury on the body of the accused, it is evident
that the offences under Sections 201/204 of I.P.C.
would have no legs to stand.
30. This leaves the Court with the offence under
Sections-120-B/34 of I.P.C. The foregoing narration
relating to the events leading to commission of suicide
by the deceased would prima facie, show that all the
three accused persons had acted in unison to belittle
the deceased in several ways and on multiple
occasions which caused him to be mentally upset.
Thus, at least at this preliminary stage, it can be
safely said that the Court below rightly took cognizance
of the offence under Section 120-B/34 of I.P.C.
Findings
31. On a conspectus of the analysis of facts and law
made hereinbefore, this Court is of the considered view
that the offences punishable under Sections
302/506/201/204 of I.P.C. are prima facie, not made
out. However, there are enough materials to at least,
prima facie, proceed against the accused persons for
the offences under Sections 306/120-B/34 I.P.C. The
impugned order warrants modification accordingly.
32. In the result, the CRLMCs are allowed in part. The
impugned order is modified only to the extent of
substitution of the offences under Sections
302/506/201/204 I.P.C. by the offences under
Sections 306/120-B/34 of I.P.C. The Court below is
directed to proceed accordingly and to try and dispose
of the case as expeditiously as possible preferably,
within eight months.
..................................
Sashikanta Mishra,
Judge
Ashok Kumar Behera
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: ASHOK KUMAR BEHERA
Reason: Authentication
Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack
Date: 22-Jun-2023 17:37:27
