K. Venugopal @ K vs State Of Orissa .... Opposite Party on 13 March, 2026

Author: V. Narasingh

Bench: V. Narasingh

         IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

                 CRL. REV. No.472 of 2024

 (In the matter of an application under Section 397 and 401
          of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973)

K. Venugopal @ K.
Venugopal Rao                          ....           Petitioner
                            -versus-

State of Orissa                        ....    Opposite Party



For Petitioner              :     Mr. S.K. Dash, Advocate

For Opposite Party          :     Mr. A.K Pati, ASC

      CORAM:
                 JUSTICE V. NARASINGH

            DATE OF HEARING :27.02.2026
            DATE OF JUDGMENT: 13.03.2026

V. Narasingh, J.

Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner and learned counsel for the State.

2. This Criminal Revision has been filed assailing the order dated 05.02.2024 passed by the learned S.D.J.M., Paralekhamundi in G.R No.591 of 2021, negating the prayer of the Petitioner not to be tried for commission of offence under Section 279/337/338/304-A/201 of IPC read with Section 180/181/192 M.V. Act.

3. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the Petitioner that even if the entire prosecution case is accepted at its face value, no prima facie case is made out. Therefore, the Petitioner should not face the ignominy of facing of trial and it is also stated that on the basis of materials on record, conduct of such a trial against the Petitioner would be an exercise in futility and would only result in waste of precious time of the Court and in fact is an abuse of process of law.

4. Learned Public Prosecutor Mr. Mohanty, on the other hand, submits that once the offences have been read over and explained to the accused and he has denied the same, there are materials on record to justify that the Petitioner ought to face trial. He further submits that it is the settled position of law and, referring to the submissions of the learned counsel for the Petitioner and placing reliance on the larger Bench judgment of the Apex Court in State of Orissa v. Debendra Nath Padhi, (2005) 1 SCC 568, submits that accepting the contention of the Petitioner would result in a "mini trial", which ought not to be entertained.

5. Admittedly, the case of the prosecution is that one K. Sriram, cited as C.W.1 in the charge- sheet, submitted a complaint on the basis of which

Garabandha P.S. Case No. 99 of 2021 was registered under Sections 279/337/338/304-A against one Laxman Pradhan.

The contents of the Formal F.I.R., more particularly in paragraph-12 thereof, read as under:

"xxx xxx xxx

12. At this hour one K. Sriram (26 Yrs) S/o K. Chiranjibilu of Kumuti Sahi Garabandha appeared at PS and presented a written report to the effect that today i.e. on 11.12.2021 at about 10 AM his mother K. Manimala (50 Yrs) and others had been to Mahendragiri for darsan in a Max Pick up van bearing OR-20-8223.After darsan at about 4 PM while they were returning to in the same vehicle, on the way at Madaba Ghati turning due to rash and negligent driving of the driver Laxman Pradhan S/o Late Hari Pradhan, he lost his control over the vehicle and the vehicle capsized to the ditch, as a result his mother succumbed to the injuries at the spot and other occupants sustained severe bleeding injuries on their person. As the report revealed a cog. Case U/s 279/337/338/304-A IPC, hence registered Garabandha PS case No. 99 dtd. 11.12.2021 and self took up investigation of the case. A copy of FIR was supplied to the complainant on free of cost.

xxx xxx xxx"

6. During the course of investigation, the said complainant and others in the vehicle, including all the injured, who have been cited as CSW-1, CSW-3, CSW-4, CSW-26, CSW-27, CSW-28, CSW-29, CSW- 30, CSW-31, CSW-32, CSW-33, CSW-34, CSW-35, CSW-36, CSW-37, CSW-38, CSW-39, CSW-40, were examined. Thereafter, charge-sheet was filed against the F.I.R.-named accused, Laxman Pradhan, and the owner of the vehicle, P. Narayan Rao, and K. Venugopal Rao-the Petitioner.

7. Admittedly, the Petitioner is neither the driver nor the owner of the vehicle, and the attention of this Court is drawn to the recital in the charge-sheet regarding the complicity of the Petitioner, which weighed with the prosecution in citing him as an accused. The same has its moorings in the Supervision Note of the SDPO.

The relevant extract of the charge-sheet relating to the complicity of the Petitioner is extracted hereunder:

"xxx xxx xxx

This case has been supervised by Sri Rama Krishna Pati(OPS) SDPO Pki, and I submitted

full compliance report to the instructions imparted in the S Note of Sri Rama Krishna Pati (OPS) SDPO Pki to S. P, Gajapati and received orders vide memo No:2877/DCRB-CR dt.30.05.2022 from SP Gajapati to submit C.S U/s 279/337/338/304-A IPC/r.w Sec. 180/181/192 MV Act. Against the accused driver Laxman Pradhan (26) S/o Late Hart Pradhan of vill- Redika Sahi, Garabandha PS:

Garabandha Dist: Gajapati, U/s 337/338/304- A/201 IPC against the accused who arranged the feast and all this things K. Venugopal Rao (56) S/o K.Narayana Murty of vill-Garabandha main Road PS: Garabandha Dist: Gajapati and U/s 337/338/304-A IPC/r.w Sec. 180/192 MV Act. Against the owner of the vehicle bearing regd. No:

OR-20-8223 namely P. Narayana Rao (40) S/o P. Jangam of vill:Sariapalli PS:Gurandi Dist:Gajapati to face their trial in the appropriate court of law.

As there is prima facie evidence well made out against the accused persons U/s 279/337/338/304-A IPC/r.w Sec. 180/181/192 MV Act. Against the accused driver Laxman Pradha (26) S/o Late Hari Pradhan of vill-Redika Sahi, Garabandha PS-Garabandha Dist:Gajapati, U/s 337/338/304-A/201 IPC against the accused K. Venugopal Rao (56) S/o K. Narayana Murty, of viil-

Garabandhe main Road PS: Garabandha Dist:

Gajapati and U/s 337/338/304-A IPC/r.w Sec. 180/192 MV Act. Against the owner of the vehicle

bearing regd. No: OR-20-8223 namely P. Narayana Rao (40) S/o P. Jangam of vill- Seriapalli PS:

Gurandi Dist: Gajapati. Hence submitted Charge Sheet against them Vide Garabandha PS C.S. No.39 Dtd 04.06.2022 under the above sections of law to stand their trial in the court of law.

xxx xxx xxx"

8. The supervision note, which has been referred to cite the Petitioner as an accused, is at Case Diary No. XVI. The same is extracted hereunder:

"xxx xxx xxx

Received Supervision Note of Shri Rama Krishna Pati (OPS) SDPO PKI and took the same to case record for guidance during investigation.

I will comply the instructions imparted in the S-Note and submit my compliance report for orders to place C.S in this case.

During course of investigation, examination of witnesses, local enquiry and supervision it is ascertained that or so far transpired that, on the fateful day i.e 11.12.2021 K. Geeta Kumari was the Sarapancha of Garbandha G.P in the ensuing G.P election to be held in February 2022, the sarapancha post was declared unreserved and hence her husband K. Venugopal Rao was an aspiring candidate from BJP. He has a strong hold

in the G.P and in order to facilitate his win in the 3 tier G.P elections, K. Venugopal Rao arranged a feast at Mahendragiri Hill Top and invited the Ayaapaa Swamy devotes to the feast in order to support him at the ground level in the elections. He managed to convince the supervisors, so that, all the Anganabadi workers of Garabandha G.P attend the feast. He had also arrange to distribute new Sarees to the Anganabadi workers and helpers. He asked his well wisher G. Bhima Rao of Redika Sahi Garabandha to arrange his Max Pick-Up vehicle bearing No: AP-30-X-0447 for the Ayyappa devotees and another Max Pick-Up vehicle bearing regd. No; OR-20-8223 for the Anganabadi workers. Accordingly G. Bhima Rao contacted P. Narayana Rao of Sariapalli for his Max Pick-Up vehicle. Knowing pretty well that these vehicle's are meant for good carriages and not for carrying passengers at about 10.00 AM the Ayyappa swami devotees of KumutiSahi, Garabandha along with Anganabadi workers including the mother of the complt. Namely K. Manimala (50) went to Mahendragiri Hill Top in these two Good carriage vehicle ie vehicle bearing regd. No; OR-20-8223 and Max Pick-Up vehicle bearing No: AP-30-X-0447. K. Venugopal Rao and supervisor went to the Hill Top by his personal four wheeler, the road from the bottom to the Top of the Hill is purely a Ghat Road having numbers of dangerous curves and the driver has to

drive the vehicle very cautiously. All of them moved and enjoyed on the Hill Top follow with the feast distribution of Sarees to the Anganabadi workers due to the Political influence of K. Venugopal Rao in the locality the Anganabadi workers went there though it was a working day at about 04.00 PM all the occupants of the side vehicles started their return journey from the Hill Top on their respective vehicle being driven by the same driver's, it is their good luck that the Ayyappa devotees returned safely on vehicle bearing No; AP-30-X-0447 but because of rash and negligence driving of driver bearing No; OR-20- 8223 namely Laxman Pradhan (26) S/o Late Hari pradhan of vill-Redika Sahi, Garabandha PS:

Garabandha Dist: Gajapati he lost control of the vehicle on one such turning, after about 50 meters of village Madwa and vehicle fell down the Hill side down gradient and meet a serious accident. The mother of Complt., K. Manimala succumbed to the injuries at the spot and all other incumbents including the driver sustained both simple and grievous injuries upon their persons. The local villagers worked as good Samaritans and shifted the injured persons to Local Hospital and DHH Paralakhemundi for their treatment, instead of looking after the treatment of the patients K. Venugopal Rao rushed to the spot after getting information about the accident and picked up all

the new sarees and other evidence laying at the spot in order to screen of himself from the charges there after also he tried his level best to motivate the vehicle owners and Anganabadi not to speak the truth to the Police One such Audio got viral and the facts came to light the accused driver is having license bearing no: AP33020210035896 for LMV (Non Transport) only and hence he is not authorize to drive any passenger vehicle.

From the fact and circumstances discussed above, it is found to be a true case U/s 279/337/338/304-A IPC/r.w Sec. 180/181/192 MV Act. Against the accused driver Laxman Pradha (26) S/o Late Hari Pradhan of vill- Redika Sahi, Garabandha PS: Garabandha DistGajapati, U/s 337/338/304-A/201 IPC against the accused K. Venugopal Rao (56) S/o K. Narayana Murty of vill-

Garabandha main Road PS: Garabandha Dist:

Gajapati and U/s 337/338/304-A IPC/r.w Sec. 180/192 MV Act. Against the owner of the vehicle bearing regd. No: OR-20-8223 namely P. Narayana Rao (40)S/o P. Jangam of vill-Sariapalli PS:Gurandi Dist:Gajapati.

"xxx xxx xxx

9. Referring to the materials on record, it is reiterated by the learned counsel for the Petitioner that even a prima facie case is not made out, hence,

the Petitioner ought not to be put through the ground of a trial.

10. Per contra, learned counsel for the State reiterates such submission that in view of the Supervision Note and the recitals which have been extracted hereinabove, it cannot be said that there is no prima facie case, warranting interference at the threshold.

11. There are no qualms about the law as laid down in the case of Debendra Nath Padhi (Supra). The materials on record have to be treated on the anvil of law laid down in the case of Debendra Nath Padhi (Supra).

12. This Court has carefully perused the statements of the Informant as well as that of the injured, who have been cited as CSW-1, CSW-3, CSW-4, CSW-26, CSW-27, CSW-28, CSW-29, CSW-

30, CSW-31, CSW-32, CSW-33, CSW-34, CSW-35, CSW-36, CSW-37, CSW-38, CSW-39, CSW-40, which have been relied upon by the prosecution.

13. Taking the statements at their face value, there is no iota of allegation regarding the involvement of the Petitioner, and the only allegation forming the basis of implicating the Petitioner as an accused has been made on the

basis of the Supervision Note which has been extracted above. There are no materials on record to fortify the accusations made in the Supervision Note so as to array the present Petitioner as an accused, even accepting the accusation as detailed in the Supervision Note, at its face value.

14. In such backdrop, this Court is persuaded to hold that there is no prima facie material to implicate the Petitioner for commission of the offences under Sections 279/337/338/304-A/201 IPC read with Sections 180/181/192 M.V. Act. Hence, in the factual matrix of the case at hand, allowing the trial to proceed against the Petitioner would be an exercise in futility and also an abuse of process of law.

15. Accordingly, the proceeding in in G.R. Case No. 591 of 2021 arising out of Garabandha P.S. Case No. 99 of 2021, under Sections 279/337/338/304- A/201 IPC read with Sections 180/181/192 M.V. Act pending before the learned S.D.J.M., Paralakhemundi, is hereby quashed qua the petitioner.

It is apposite to note that the observation made here are in respect of the petitioner only.

16. The CRLREV is accordingly disposed of.

(V. NARASINGH) Judge

Orissa High Court, Cuttack, Dated the 13th March, 2026/ Soumya

Signed by: SOUMYA RANJAN SAMAL

Location: High Court of Orissa Date: 20-Mar-2026 18:09:05