[Cites 1, Cited by 0]
Orissa High Court
Dhrub Charan Mohanty vs State Of Odisha ..... Opposite Party on 7 January, 2026
Author: Aditya Kumar Mohapatra
Bench: Aditya Kumar Mohapatra
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
CRLMC No.4734 of 2024
Dhrub Charan Mohanty ..... Petitioner
Represented by Adv. -
Sarada Prasanna Sarangi
-versus-
State Of Odisha ..... Opposite Party
Represented by Adv. -
Ms. S.Nayak, A.S.C.
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR
MOHAPATRA
ORDER
Order No. 07.01.2026
03. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement
(Virtual/Physical Mode).
2. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner as well as the learned
counsel for the State. Perused the application as well as the prayer
made therein.
3. By filing the present application under Section 482 of the
Cr.P.C., the Petitioner seeks invoking the inherent power of this
Court to quash the entire criminal proceeding in G.R. Case No.274 of
1995 pending in the Court of learned J.M.F.C., Kujanga which
corresponds to Paradeep P.S. Case No.125 of 1995, the same also
corresponds to S.T. Case No.107 of 1998.
4. Learned counsel for the Petitioner at the outset contended that
in the meantime principal accused and some of the co-accused who
faced trial, have been acquitted by the learned trial court vide
judgment dated 08.09.1998 in S.T. Case No.107 of 1998. In course of
submission, learned counsel for the Petitioner specifically referred to
the observation of the learned trial court while acquitting the
principal accused. On perusal of such observation it appears that the
victim who was examined as P.W.-7 has turned hostile and he has not
supported the case of the prosecution. The victim has categorically
denied that the principal accused has not committed any crime.
Accordingly, the learned trial court has come to a final conclusion
that there is absolutely no material against the principal accused, and,
as such, he was acquitted of all charges.
5. So far as the present Petitioner is concerned, it is stated by the
learned counsel for the Petitioner that initially he was not named in
the F.I.R. He further contended that so far the present Petitioner is
concerned the only allegation is that the principal accused and the
victim stayed at his residence for couple of days while they eloped
from the locality. On the basis of the aforesaid allegation the
Petitioner has been implicated as an accused in this case.
6. In course of hearing, learned counsel for the Petitioner further
submitted that earlier the Petitioner has approached this Court by
filing CRLMC No.3252 of 2016, and the same was initially admitted
and interim order was passed directing stay of execution of the NBW
issued against the present Petitioner in connection with the aforesaid
case. However, the aforesaid matter was subsequently dismissed due
to non-prosecution vide order dated 28.11.2022. Although an
application bearing CRLMC No.46 of 2023, was field for restoration,
however, the learned co-ordinate bench vide order dated 15.05.2024
dismissed the application for restoration. As a result of which, the
Petitioner was compelled to file the present application invoking the
inherent power of this Court.
7. Learned counsel for the State on the other hand objected to the
prayer made in the present application. She further submitted that
although the principal accused has been acquitted in this case, so far
the present Petitioner is concerned he never participated in the trial,
therefore, evidence is required to be led against the present Petitioner
in the pending trial which has been split up due to no-cooperation of
the present Petitioner. Further, referring to the seriousness and
gravity of the allegation made in the F.I.R., learned counsel for the
State contended that it would not be proper and fair to quash the
entire criminal proceeding. Hence, it was prayed that the present
application, being devoid of merit, is liable to be dismissed.
8. Having regard to the submissions made by the learned counsels
appearing for the both sides, on a careful examination of the
background facts as well as materials on record, further keeping in
view the judgment of acquittal dated 08.09.1998 passed in S.T.
No.107 of 1998 by the learned Additional District & Sessions Judge,
Jagatsinghpur at Annexure-3 to the application. On a careful
consideration of the F.I.R. at Annexure-1, this Court found that the
present Petitioner was initially not named in the F.I.R. The principal
accused who has been named in the F.I.R., namely one Sudhir Rout,
against whom there is allegation are commission of rape, faced the
trial in the meantime and he has been acquitted. Such fact is
supported by the judgment at Annexure-3. So far the present
Petitioner is concerned, the only allegation against him that he had
given shelter to the principal accused and the victim. This Court, on a
close scrutiny of the judgment of acquittal in respect of the principal
accused, Sudhir Rout observes that the learned trial court has
categorically stated that the victim who had been examined as P.W-7
has not supported the prosecution case. The Victim has categorically
stated that the principal accused has not committed any crime.
Finally, the learned trial court in the absence of any material against
the principal accused has rendered the judgment of the acquittal. On a
careful examination of the report, it appears that the F.I.R. was
lodged in the year 1995 and that the co-accused persons was
acquitted in the year 1998and in the meantime two decades have
passed. There is no substantial material on the basis of which this
Court would permit the trial to continue against the present
Petitioner. Moreover, the role of the Petitioner in the alleged crime
was very specific and limited to the extent that he had given shelter
to the principal accused and the victim. In view of the aforesaid
factual scenario, this Court is of the view that the present case is a fit
case where this Court should exercise in its inherent power to quash
the entire criminal proceeding against the present Petitioner.
Accordingly, the entire criminal proceeding arising out of Paradeep
P.S. Case No.125 of 1995 which corresponds to G.R. Case No.274 of
1995 is hereby quashed.
9. Accordingly, the CRLMC application stands allowed.
Rubi ( A.K. Mohapatra )
Judge
