Orissa High Court
Basudev Sethi & Others vs State Of Odisha .... Opp. Party on 20 November, 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
CRLMC No.2957 of 2024
Basudev Sethi & others .... Petitioners
Mr. S.H. Chandan, Advocate
-versus-
State of Odisha .... Opp. Party
Mr. S.J. Mohanty, Advocate
CORAM:
JUSTICE SIBO SANKAR MISHRA
Order ORDER
No. 20.11.2024
01. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid
Arrangement (Virtual/Physical Mode).
2. Heard.
3. The petitioners are accused in connection with
Malgodown P.S. Case No.212 of 2017 corresponding to
G.R. Case NO.1797 of 2017 pending in the Court of
learned J.M.F.C.-III (C.T.), Cuttack.
4. The prosecution case is that on 21.09.2017 at
about 2.30 P.M., while the informant along with his
staff were performing law and order duty at
Madhusduan Law College, Cuttack on Student Union
Election, all of a sudden some student of the said
amit college blocked the road by burning tyres in front of
the College and rising slogan against then Hon'ble
Health Minister Sri Pratap Jena. Hence, the F.I.R.
5. Five other co-accused persons, who were named
in the F.I.R., had approached this Court by filing
CRLMC No.490 of 2022 (Jeevanjyoti Moohanty &
Others Vrs. State of Odisha) seeking quashing of the
entire criminal prosecution. The Coordinate Bench of
this Court dealt with the matter and passed the
following order:
"6. Gone through the charge sheet as at
Annexure-2. The petitioners have been roped in for
the alleged incident and in connection with the
incident dated 21st September, 2017. Some of the
named accused persons in the FIR (Annexure-1) said
to have been left out and not charge sheeted along
with the petitioners. The FIR was drawn by the S.I.
of police for the alleged incident. Admittedly, neither
the College Administration nor anyone from the
public lodged any complaint with the local police vis-
à-vis the incident. It was in connection with a protest
in the college during the election time and as alleged
by the informant, the protesters raised slogans
against the Principal of the college and others and
committed certain mischief and in the process,
obstructed the public road and vehicular movement.
7. The principal ground upon which Mr. Mohanty,
learned counsel for the petitioners challenged the
criminal proceeding is that there has been no proper
identification of the miscreants during investigation.
In other words, no concrete evidence was collected
during the investigation before the charge sheet was
filed in order to properly identify the real culprits,
who did the alleged mischief during the incident. It is
submitted by Mr. Rout, the learned AGA that since
the petitioners have been charge sheeted based on
evidence received during the investigation, it cannot
therefore be said that there has been no proper
identification of the miscreants. It is pleaded that
some of the petitioners have become lawyers in the
meantime and others have passed out as law
students and aspiring to join judiciary and one of
them is also a disabled person and in so far as the
then President of the college is concerned, who
actually spearheaded the protest, has expired in the
meantime. Considering the above facts and the fact
that the petitioners are educated and having bright
future and despite charge sheet being filed in 2019,
the trial has not been commenced till date, for such
inordinate delay in framing charge, learned counsel
for the petitioners submits that in the best interest of
justice, this Court in exercise of extraordinary
jurisdiction should quash the criminal proceeding.
8. Learned counsel for the petitioners cited an
order of this Court in the case of CRLMC No.2915 of
2013, wherein, the criminal proceeding pending
before the learned S.D.J.M., Bhubaneswar in G.R.
Case No.238 of 2010 corresponding to Mancheswar
P.S. Case No.30 of 2010 was quashed. A copy of the
said order is at Anneuxre-4. On a reading of the said
order dated 30th January, 2014, it is made to
appear that there was a compromise between the
parties, such as, the students, who participated in
the agitation and the Management of the college and
under such circumstances, it was held that no useful
purpose would be served to continue with the
criminal proceeding. Such is not the situation in the
case at hand. In the instant case, the charge sheet is
filed in the year 2019 which was after two years
from the date of occurrence and it is not disputed by
the State that till date, the trial has not begun. The
Court finds substantial delay in completion of
investigation which consumed more than two years
to complete. Further delay has occasioned even in
the commencement of trial as the charges are not yet
framed. At times, delay defeats justice equally for
the victim and accused. No doubt, delay in
commencement of trial cannot always be a ground to
derail the prosecution. In the case at hand, the
petitioners then students of a law college are alleged
to be involved, some of whom are said to have joined
the legal profession. Considering the nature of
incident which originated from a college protest and
since 2017, the Damocles sword is hanging over the
petitioners, who await for the trial to commence
which has still eluded them and in the meantime,
precious five years have gone by, out of which, the
investigation unreasonably consumed more than two
years just to round off the culprits, the Court, in the
peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, is of
the humble view that the criminal action, which is
pending for the last six years and before court below
since 2019 without any real progress, should be
terminated in the interest of justice. Such delay
though may not be claimed unusual under normal
circumstances but when pitted against the lives and
career of the petitioners who are having high hopes
and aspiration to grow and prosper, it is quite
considerable and they cannot be allowed to face a
life of uncertainty. Any further delay, as according to
the Court, could result in persecution and hence, it is
a fit case to bring an end to the proceeding so as to
advance the cause of justice.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that
the role assigned to the present petitioners are
verbatim same to that of the role assigned to the
petitioners in CRLMC No.491 of 2022. Therefore, their
case is squrely covers by the judgment dated
06.04.2023 of the Coordinate Bench of this Court.
7. Mr. Mohanty, learned counsel for the State
submits that the judgment of this Court dated
06.04.2023 passed in CRLMC No.491 of 2022 has
attained finality as the same has not been challenged
by the State. Hence, this petition deserves merit.
8. In my considered view the case of the present
petitioners are directly covered by the judgment of
this Court in the case of Jeevanjyoti Mohanty
(supra). Accordingly, relying upon the said judgment, I
am inclined to allow this petition. Hence, the
Malgodown P.S. Case No.212 of 2017 corresponding to
G.R. Case NO.1797 of 2017 pending in the Court of
learned J.M.F.C.-III (C.T.), Cuttack is quashed qua the
petitioners.
9. The CRLMC is accordingly disposed of.
Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK
(S.S. Mishra)
Judge
