Orissa High Court
Shakti Kumar Das vs State Of Odisha & Another .... Opp. Party on 18 February, 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
CRLMC No.301 of 2025
Shakti Kumar Das .... Petitioner
Mr.Jugala
Kishore Panda,
Advocate
-versus-
State of Odisha & another .... Opp. Party
Mr.S.J.Mohanty,
ASC
CORAM:
JUSTICE SIBO SANKAR MISHRA
Order ORDER
No. 18.02.2025
03. 1. This petition is directed against the order dated
16.12.2024 passed by the learned 2nd Additional
District & Sessions Judge, Baripada in G.R. Case
No.09 of 2021 arising out of Baripada Sadar P.S. Case
No.04 of 2021, whereby the application moved by the
petitioner/accused under Section 227 of the Cr. P.C.
seeking discharge has been turned down.
2. Earlier, the petitioner had approached this Court
by filing CRLMC No.3087 of 2022 challenging the
order dated 11.10.2021 passed by the learned Special
Judge, Mayurbhanj in G.R. Case No.9 of 2021 arising
out of Baripada Sadar P.S. Case No.4 of 2021,
Page 1 of 6
whereby the cognizance of the offences punishable
under Sections 337/338/294/506 of the IPC r/w
Sections 3(1)(r)(s)/3(2)(va) of the SC & ST (PoA) Act
was taken against the petitioner.
3. The Coordinate Bench of this Court although had
dismissed the said petition, however permitted the
petitioner to raise all the points before the trial Court
at the appropriate stage.
4. Pursuant thereto, the present petitioner moved
an application on 23.07.2024 before the trial Court
under Section 227 of the Cr. P.C. The said application
was objected by the prosecution by filing objection
dated 10.12.2024. By taking into consideration the
materials placed on record and the points urged by
the petitioner and the objection of the prosecution,
the impugned order has been passed. The trial Court
has relied upon the following judgments of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of State of
Himachal Pradesh vs. Krishan Lal Pradhan and
others, reported in (1987) 2 SCC 17, Captain
Manjit Singh Virdi vs. Hussain Mohammed
Shattaf and others, reported in (2023) 7 SCC 633,
State of Karnataka vs. M.R. Hiremath, reported in
(2019) 7 SCC 515, State of Rajasthan vs. Ashok
Kumar Kashyap, reported in (2021) 11 SCC 191
and M.E. Shivalingamurthy vs. CBI, reported in
(2020) 2 SCC 768.
5. On the basis of the law laid down by the Hon'ble
Page 2 of 6
Supreme Court on the subject and the material
placed by the I.O. in the form of charge sheet, the
trial Court proceeded to observe as under:
"In this case, on examination of the materials
submitted by IO and prosecution in the light of the
observations made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
the above referred cases, sufficient materials are
found prima facie suggesting commission of the
alleged offences by the accused. The FIR and the
statement of complainant recorded under section 161
of Cr.PC, even if read in isolation, make out all the
alleged offences, of which cognizance has been taken.
At this stage, truthfulness of the allegations cannot be
looked into. Further, this is not the appropriate stage
to consider the defence plea that complainant's
husband was not working for accused, or that
complainant had requested the accused for financial
help, or that on refusal of accused complainant has
falsely implicated him. All these aspects can be gone
into during the trial only."
6. Aggrieved by the aforementioned order passed
by the learned Court below, the petitioner has filed
the present case.
7. Mr. Panda, learned counsel for the petitioner
vehemently argued that the present case is an after-
thought because in the F.I.R., the story narrated by
the informant is completely contrary to the
improvised story put forth by her in her statement
under Section 161 of the Cr. P.C. He has contended
that the present F.I.R. has been filed with a motive to
extract the money from the petitioner and is an
ulterior design ployed by the petitioner. The place of
incident is also doubtful. In that regard, he has
contended that Ramesh Cement Works Factory has
Page 3 of 6
already been closed long back. Therefore, the story
put forth by the informant is also manufactured one.
The prosecutor, in his objection, however has
contended that this is not the stage where the Court
should delve upon the merits of the case.
8. The precise allegation made by the informant in
the present case is that her husband was asked by
the petitioner to plaster the wall. However, due to
sudden fall, the right leg of her husband got
fractured. Therefore, he was shifted to the medical for
treatment and on 30.12.2020 at about 5 P.M. the
doctor referred the injured to the S.C.B. Medical
College & Hospital, Cuttack. However, due to the
pathetic financial condition, she could not take her
husband to the hospital. When she came to the house
of the petitioner and demanded the arrear dues of her
husband and asked for medical expenses, the
informant was rebuked and she was scolded and
abused. Therefore, the F.I.R. was registered.
9. The investigation of the case was completed and
the Final Form was filed on 07.01.2021 for the alleged
commission of the offences punishable under
Sections 337/338/294/506 of the IPC r/w Sections
3(1)(r)/3(1)(s)/3(2)(va) of the SC & ST (PoA) Act.
10. The learned trial Court, vide order dated
08.10.2021
, had taken the cognizance of the offences
as mentioned above.
11. I have perused the allegations made by the
informant in the F.I.R. and the statements of the
witnesses recorded by the police under Section 161 of
the Cr. P.C. Apart from the statements of the
informant, which has been recorded by the police on
the date of the F.I.R. i.e. on 07.01.2021, the
statements of the other witnesses have also been
recorded on the next day i.e. 08.01.2021.
12. I have meticulously gone through the statements
of the witnesses, namely, Dipu Singh, Pulin Kumar
Naik, Sarat Singh, Kanhu Singh, Gaya Tudu, Sonali
Tudu etc., recorded under Section 161 of the Cr. P.C.
the informant in her statement recorded under
Section 161 of the Cr. P.C. has made very categorical
allegation against the petitioner and the said
statement has been corroborated by the statements of
the other witnesses. Merely because the statement of
the informant is somehow contradictory to the F.I.R.,
does not make out a case for the petitioner for
discharge from the case.
13. It is well settled principle of law enunciated by
the Hon'ble Supreme Court as has been relied upon
by the learned trial Court that at the time of framing
of the charges, the Court is to only arrive at a
conclusion whether the prima facie case regarding
commission of the offence is made out or not. The
question whether the charges would be proved or not
can be determined only after the evidence is recorded
in the case. Therefore, the learned trial Court has
rightly relied upon the judgments of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court as has been mentioned above and
passed the impugned order.
14. In that view of the matter, I am not inclined to
interfere with the order of the learned trial Court,
which is just and proper and well within the fore-
corner of law.
15. The CRLMC is accordingly dismissed.
(S.S. Mishra)
Judge
Subhasis
Designation: Personal Assistant
Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack.
Date: 20-Feb-2025 18:52:20
