Orissa High Court
Prakash Chandra Swain vs ) State Of Odisha ..... Opposite Parties on 20 August, 2025
Author: Aditya Kumar Mohapatra
Bench: Aditya Kumar Mohapatra
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
CRLMC No.1984 of 2025
Prakash Chandra Swain ..... Petitioner
Represented By Adv. -
Samir Kumar Mishra
-versus-
1) State Of Odisha ..... Opposite Parties
2) Anup Ranjan Jena Represented By Adv. -
Mr.C.M.Singh, A.S.C.
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR
MOHAPATRA
ORDER
Order No. 20.08.2025
02. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual
/Physical Mode).
2. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner as well as learned
counsel for the State. Perused the application as well as the prayer made
therein.
3. The present application has been field by invoking the inherent
jurisdiction of this Court under Section 528 of the B.N.S.S.
4. Challenging order dated 13.05.2025 passed by the learned
Additional District & Sessions Judge, Anandapur in S.T. Case No.23 of
2023 which corresponds to Nandipada P.S. case No.277 dated
14.11.2022 which corresponds to G.R. Case No.444 of 2022 thereby
rejecting the petition filed by the informant-petitioner for a direction for
further investigation is fixed.
5. Learned counsel for the Petitioner at the outset contended that on
the basis of the information by the petitioner-informant an F.I.R. was
lodged resulting in Nandipada P.S. case No.277 dated 14.11.2022 was
registered for commission of an offence punishable under Section
302/201 of I.P.C. Learned counsel for the Petitioner at this stage
emphatically argued that some of the accused persons who had
participated in the alleged crime have not been charge sheeted and they
were not subjected to the investigation/inquiry by the Investigating
Officer. As a result of which they have been left out of the trial. He
further submitted that such accused persons are equally liable to be
punished as they had participated in the commission of alleged crime.
Accordingly, learned counsel for the Petitioner further contended that
an application was filed before the learned trial court with a prayer for
direction to conduct further investigation under Section 173(8) of the
Cr.P.C. read with Section 65(B)(4)(C) of Indian Evidence Act. The
learned Additional District & Sessions Judge, Anandapur after hearing
of the counsels from both sides, vide order dated 13.05.2025 rejected
the prayer of the Petitioner for a direction for further investigation of
the case. Being aggrieved by such order the petitioner has approached
this Court by filing the present application.
6. Learned counsel for the State on other hand contended that the
learned trial court has not committed any illegality by passing order
dated 13.05.2025 at Annexure-5 which has been challenged by the
petitioner and the present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. He
further contended that in the meantime the trial has commenced.
Learned counsel for the State further contended that the learned trial
court is not devoid of power to proceed against any other person
appearing to be guilty of the offence, in the event it appears to the
learned trial court, in the course of trial from the available evidence,
that such persons are in fact involved in the alleged crime and they are
liable to face trial together with the other accused persons. In such view
of the matter, learned counsel for the State contended that the learned
trial court has not committed any illegality in passing the order dated
13.05.2025. Accordingly, the present application field at the instance of
the petitioner is devoid of merit and accordingly the same should be
dismissed.
7. Having regard to the submissions made by the learned counsel
appearing for the respective parties, on a close scrutiny of order dated
13.05.2025, this Court observes that the learned trial court while
considering the prayer of the petitioner for a direction to conduct further
investigation, has passed order dated 13.05.2025 thereby rejecting the
prayer of the Petitioner-Informant. On a perusal of the order dated
13.05.2025, this Court observed that the prayer of the petitioner has
been considered and the same has been disposed of by a reasoned and
detailed order. The learned trial court in the impugned order dated
13.05.2025 has categorically held that the power of the Court to direct
for further investigation under Section 173(8) of the Cr.P.C. can be
exercised only at the commencement of the trial. Since the trial in the
present case has commenced the learned trial court has not been
exercised the power under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C. In the aforesaid
context, learned trial court has also taken note of the judgment of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in Vinubhai, Haribhai Malaviya vs. State of
Gujurat reported in (2019) 17 SCC 1. On a careful scrutiny of the
impugned order dated 13.05.2025, this Court is of the view that the
learned trial court has not committed any illegality by not exercising the
power under Section 173(8) of the Cr.P.C. as the trial has already
commenced. So far the grievance of the informant is concerned i.e. with
regard to adding some of the persons as accused who are found to be
guilty of the offences, this court is of the view that the learned trial
court is not devoid of the power to add such persons as an accused
during trial. In the aforesaid context, this Court referred to the
provisions contained in Section 319 of the Cr.P.C. which clearly
provides that even during the trial if some material evidence appears
then the learned trial court can always add such persons as accused who
were initially not shown as accused and made them face trial.
Therefore, this Court is of the view that there exists a scope on the part
of the learned trial court to add a person who has not been shown as an
accused in the charge sheet to be added as an accused later on during
the trial, subject to satisfaction of the trial court on the basis of the
evidence place before it. In view of the aforesaid position, this Court,
although is not inclined to interfere with the impugned order dated
13.05.2025, however it is observed that in the event any material comes
up during trial which indicates involvement of such other persons in the
crime, then it is always open to the learned trial court to take resolve to
the power conferred upon the trial court under Section 309 of the
Cr.P.C.
8. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the CRLMC
stands disposed of.
( A.K. Mohapatra)
Judge
Rubi
