Orissa High Court
Asutosh Sahu vs State Of Odisha And Another .... ... on 11 November, 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
CRLMC No.4035 of 2024
Asutosh Sahu .... Petitioner(s)
Mr. D. K. Rath, Advocate
-versus-
State of Odisha and another .... Opposite Party(s)
Mr. S. J. Mohanty, ASC
CORAM: JUSTICE SIBO SANKAR MISHRA
ORDER
11.11.2024
Order No.
01. 1. Heard.
2. The petitioner has invoked the inherent jurisdiction of this
Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of the entire
criminal prosecution in S.T. Case No.173 of 2023 arising out of
Athagarh P.S. Case No.112 of 2023 pending in the Court of the
learned Additional Sessions Judge, Athagarh initiated against him
by the opposite party No.2.
3. The prosecution case in short is that, on 22.05.2023, the
informant lodged a written report before the I.I.C., Athagarh P.S.
alleging therein that on 20.05.2023, his daughter (deceased) went to
KIIT College but did not return to home in time. It is alleged that on
the same day at about 5.00 P.M., the present accused-petitioner
called him and informed that he found the scooty of his daughter
but the deceased girl could not be traced. When the informant went
to the spot, he found the dead body of the deceased on the bank of
Mahanadi River. The informant specifically made an allegation that
the accused-petitioner is fully responsible for the death of his
daughter. Hence, the F.I.R.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the present
case is directly covered by the judgment of this Court in the case of
Dr. Priyank Tapuria vrs. State of Orissa & another in CRLMC
No.385 of 2023.
5. At this stage, learned counsel for State has pointed out that
the petitioner had moved an application under Section 227 Cr.P.C
before the trial Court seeking discharge from the case, which was
turned down by the learned trial Court. Against the said order, the
petitioner approached this Court by filing CRLREV No.187 of
2024. The coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated
04.09.2024 has disallowed the Revision Petition inter alia recording
as under:-
3. Mr. Rath, learned counsel for the petitioner submits
that no case is made out against the petitioner, hence,
therefore, the learned Court below ought to have
discharged the petitioner allowing the application filed
by him under Section 227 Cr.P.C. In support of such
submission, learned counsel for the petitioner refers to
Annexure-2, a copy of the FIR and claims that there is no
allegation against the petitioner but he has been
implicated and chargesheeted vide Annexure-3. To
substantiate his contention learned counsel for the
petitioner relies on SwamyPrahlad Das Vrs. State of
M.P. AIR Online 1995 SC 94; Ramesh Kumar Vrs.
State of Chhattisgarh AIR 2001 SC 3837; Sanju @
Sanjay Singh Sengar Vrs. State of M.P. 2002 AIR
SCW 2035; S.S. Chheena Vrs. Vijay Kumar Mahajan
& others 2010 12 SCC 190; M Mohan Vrs. The State
represented by the Deputy Superintendent of Police
AIR 2011 SC 1238; Amit Kapoor Vrs
RameshuChander AIR Online 2012 SC 668; State of
Kerala & others Vrs. Unikrishnan Nair & others AIR
2015 SC 3351 and bunch of other decisions as well.
8. Considering the statements recorded under Section
161 Cr.P.C. as at Annexure-4 series, this Court finds that
there is allegation against the petitioner and the overt acts
committed by him as a consequence whereof, the victim
committed suicide. Not only that, others allegations have
also been made against the petitioner so revealed from
Annexure-4 series. Considering the chargesheet under
Annexure-3, this Court finds a prima facie case is made
out against the petitioner. It is the settled law that unless
a case is made out against an accused, no charge can be
sustained but in the case at hand, allegations have been
made as shown from Annexure-2 and the evidence
collected during such investigation suggests that it was
on account of conduct of the petitioner, the victim did
commit suicide. The Court is of the view that the
discharge so pleaded by the petitioner could not have
been allowed as against the nature of allegations made
and evidence submitted along with the chargesheet. Mere
suspicion about involvement may even be sufficient to
frame charge as a threadbare discussion of evidence is
not to be resorted to as it may amount to a piecemeal trial
and the settled law is that such exercise should always be
avoided. Having said that, this Court is of the considered
opinion that the learned Court below has not committed
any error or illegality in not discharging the petitioner
from the alleged offence, while entertaining an
application filed under Section 227 Cr.P.C. Hence, the
final conclusion of the Court is that no justifiable reason
lies to interfere with the impugned order under
Annexure-1, which does not suffer from any legal
infirmity."
6. Prima facie, although it appears on the first flush that the
petitioner's case is factually covered by the judgment of this Court
in Dr. Priyank Tapuria (supra). However, regard being had to the
fact that the discharge petition filed by the petitioner has been
rejected by the learned trial Court and which is confirmed by the
coordinate Bench of this Court, I am not inclined to entertain this
petition at this stage. However, liberty is granted to the petitioner to
resort to the remedy available to him under law.
7. With this observation, the CRLMC is disposed of.
(S.S. Mishra)
Judge
Swarna
Location: High Court of Orissa
