Orissa High Court
Sheik Nawab @ Sk. Nawab vs State Of Orissa .... Opp. Party on 4 November, 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
CRLMC No.2137 of 2024
Sheik Nawab @ Sk. Nawab .... Petitioner
Mr. T.N. Murty,
Advocate
-versus-
State of Orissa .... Opp. Party
Mr. Tej Kumar,
ASC
CORAM:
JUSTICE SIBO SANKAR MISHRA
Order ORDER
No. 04.11.2024
01. 1. Heard Mr. T. N Murty, learned counsel appearing
for the petitioner and Mr. Tej Kumar, learned
Additional Standing Counsel appearing for the
opposite party-State.
2. In the present petition, the petitioner has invoked
the inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section
482 Cr. P.C. seeking quashing of the order dated
03.07.2013 passed by the learned S.D.J.M., Jeypore
in C.T. No.36 of 2013 corresponding to G.R. Case
No.664 of 2012, whereby the cognizance of the
offences punishable under Section 395 of the IPC has
been taken against the petitioner and other co-
Page 1 of 6
accused persons.
3. The F.I.R. in subject has been registered against
the unknown persons, inter alia, alleging that, on
24.11.2012
, when the informant along with some
other persons were travelling from village Lamatapur
to Baligaon to the weekly hat, at that time, near Peta
Ghati Parel chhok, one motor cycle followed them
and stopped their vehicle. The informant further
alleged that earlier there were about 7 persons
standing there being armed with sword and kati
covering their faces with clothes. Those persons
forcefully snatched away cash of Rs.30,600/- from
the informant, cash of Rs.86,570/- from Shyama
Hantal, cash of Rs.40,000/- from Dhanurjaya
Hantal, cash of Rs.8,000/- from Jaya Nirikhi and
cash of Rs.5,600/- from Dhania Khemudu. In total,
those miscreants looted cash of Rs.1,70,770/- from
the informant and his co-passengers along with their
mobile phones etc. Hence, the F.I.R.
4. After the investigation, the police filed the charge
sheet in the present case on 03.07.2013 against all
the accused persons. However, the present petitioner
was shown as an absconder. On the same day, the
cognizance of the offence punishable under Section
395 of the IPC was taken. Since the petitioner and
few other accused persons were shown to have
absconded, the trial of the case was split up qua
those who have been apprehended. Two of the
accused persons have faced the trial.
5. The learned C.J.M.-cum-Assistant Sessions
Judge, Koraput-Jeypore, vide judgment dated
24.06.2014 acquitted the two co-accused persons
those who had faced the trial, inter alia, returning
following findings:
"6. On a scrutiny of the entire evidence adduced on behalf
of the prosecution, it transpires that none of the prosecution
witnesses including the informant has stated in his
evidence that the accused persons had looted cash and
mobile phone from him or any of the prosecution witnesses
on the alleged date, time and place of occurrence. The
informant (P.W.1) and the occurrence witnesses, such as,
PW.2, PW.3, PW.10 and PW.11 have only stated in their
evidence regarding the incident that took place on the
alleged date, time and place of occurrence. The informant
has proved the FIR as Ext.1. But, the FIR (Ext.1) does not
disclose the name of any of the accused persons. The
informant and the above noted occurrence witnesses have
all stated in their evidence that they do not know the
accused persons and they also cannot identify them as at
the time of alleged occurrence, they had covered their faces
with clothes. The IO, who is examined as PW.12, has
admitted during cross examination by the learned defence
counsel that he had not made any prayer to the Court to
conduct the T.I. Parade in this case and he had not
recorded the statement of the accused persons in this case.
There is no other incriminating materials available on record
against the accused persons to come to a conclusion that on
24.11.2012 at about 9.30 a.m. at Parel chhok near Peta
ghat, the accused persons along with four others had
committed dacoity in respect of cash of Rs.1,70,770/- in
total and two mobile phones from the informant Sadan
Nayak and others.
7. In view of my above-noted discussions and reasonings,
I am bound to come to a conclusion that the prosecution in
this case has miserably failed to prove the charge U/s. 395
of IPC against the accused persons by clear, cogent and
satisfactory evidence as well as beyond all reasonable
doubts for which the accused persons are entitled to get the
benefit of doubt and an order of acquittal. In the result, the
accused persons are found not guilty of the offence U/s 395
of IPC and therefore, they are acquitted of the said charge
U/s. 235(1) of the Cr. P.C. They be set at liberty forthwith
and their bail bonds stand discharged."
6. The learned trial Court acquitted the co-accused
persons because none of the prosecution witnesses
leant support to the prosecution case, hence, due to
the lack of credible evidence, the learned trial Court
recorded the acquittal in favour of the co-accused
persons.
7. Mr. Murty, learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner submited that when the matter was being
investigated by the police on 27.06.2013, the I.O. has
prayed for issuance of the N.B.W. against the
petitioner. However, without executing the N.B.W.,
the charge sheet was filed in the present case
projecting the present petitioner as an absconder. The
petitioner had no clue regarding the case. Therefore,
the petitioner has approached this Court belatedly
after acquiring knowledge about the pendency of the
case.
8. It is apparent from the record that, on
29.08.2022, the case against the petitioner in G.R.
Case No.664(A) of 2012 was put to the dormant file.
The petitioner has approached this Court by relying
upon the judgment of the learned Court below dated
24.06.2014.
9. I have perused the proceeding of the learned
Court below vis-à-vis the present petition and also
perused the charge sheet and analyzed the judgment
of the learned Court below recording the acquittal in
favour of the co-accused persons.
10. It appears from the record that the prosecution
has failed to adduce any credible evidence before the
Court below, which led to the acquittal of the co-
accused persons. It is further apparent from the
record that, there was no T.I. Parade conducted in the
present case. Therefore, the submission of Mr. Murty,
learned counsel for the petitioner that subjecting the
present petitioner to the trial would be a futile
exercise, may hold some water. However, the conduct
of the petitioner cannot be ignored while dealing with
his case in the present proceeding. From the
proceeding, it is apparent that on 29.08.2022, the
processes under Sections 82 & 83 of the Cr. P.C. was
issued against the petitioner, as the petitioner
appears to have been avoiding the process of law.
11. Therefore, I am not inclined to allow the present
petition. However, liberty is granted to the petitioner
to surrender/appear before the learned trial Court on
or before 30.11.2024 and resort to the remedy
available to him under law.
12. Regard being had to the fact that the present
case was registered way back in the year 2012 and
the co-accused persons have already been acquitted
in the present case, the learned trial Court is directed
to do well to see that the trial of the present case is
concluded as expeditiously as possible preferably
within a period of four months from the date of
production of the certified copy of this order.
13. With the aforementioned observation, the CRLMC
is disposed of.
(S.S. Mishra)
Judge
Subhasis
Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack.
