Gauranga Charan Sahoo vs State Of Odisha

S.Pujahari     Â

This application under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing of the entire proceeding in C.T. No.99 of 2005, corresponding to

Manamunda P.S. Case No.60 of 2005, pending in the Court of the learned J.M.F.C., Kantamal.

Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the relevant papers on record.

The petitioner has been arraigned as a co-accused in G.R. Case No.99 of 2005 in the court of the learned J.M.F.C., Kantamal, and charge having

been framed against the accused persons under Sections 419, 420, 468, 472, 406, 408/34 of I.P.C., the case is under trial. As reported, no witness has

been examined so far by the prosecution. The petitioner-co-accused seeks for quashing of the proceeding mainly on twin grounds that there is no

material on record to show his complicity in the alleged case incident, and even after more than fifteen years from the date of institution of the case,

the prosecution / trial Court has not endeavoured to get a single witness examined in support of the prosecution case. According to the petitioner,

continuance of the proceeding against him is not only prejudicial to him, but also is tantamount to abuse of the process of the Court. The learned

counsel for the petitioner has cited decisions in the case of Imtiyaz Ahmad vrs. State of U.P. and others, reported in (2012) 2 SCC 686, State of

U.P. vrs. Kapil Deo Shukla, reported in AIR 1973 S.C. 494 and Hare Krushna Mahatab vrs. Republic of India, reported in 52 (1981) CLT 473.

On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the State submitted that although unnecessary protraction of trial or insensitivity on the part of

the prosecution in producing witnesses cannot be countenanced, the same ipso facto does not furnish a good ground for quashing of the proceeding.

A perusal of the lower Court record would reveal that the protraction of the proceeding was attributable to various reasons, and not to the sole

reason of non-attendance of the prosecution witnesses. One of the co-accused persons, namely, Sanjay Ghosh, remained absent on jumping bail, and

his production having not been secured, the case against him was, ultimately, split up. Be that as it may, the prosecution cannot escape the blame of

not being serious and sensitive in causing attendance of its witnesses to commence the evidence.

Notwithstanding the observation as above, this Court does not find the present to be a fit case to quash the proceeding against the petitioner. At this

stage of the proceeding, the contention of the petitioner that there is no material to proceed against him is not tenable, inasmuch as there has already

been framed charge against him directing him to face the trial along with the co-accused persons for the offences under Sections 419, 420, 468, 472,

406 and 408/34 of IPC, and the order of framing the charge has not been challenged by him. It is now for the prosecution to adduce evidence to

substantiate the charge so framed against the accused persons.

In the case of Machander vrs. State of Hyderabad, reported in (1955) Cri.L.J. 1644, the Apex Court observed that while it was incumbent on the

Court to see that no guilty person escapes, it is still more its duty to see that justice is not delayed and accused persons are not indefinitely harassed.

The scale must be held even between the prosecution and the accused. So also, in the case of A.R. Antulay v. R.S. Nayak, reported in 1992 Cri.L.J.

2717, the Apex Court held that the right to a speedy trial was a part of fair, just and reasonable procedure implicit in Article 21 of the Constitution.

While observing so, the Apex Court also held that it was not advisable or feasible to fix an outer limit for conclusion of the criminal proceeding, and

that each case had to be decided on its own facts. It was further observed in the said case that while determining whether undue delay has in fact

occurred, one must have regard to all the attendant circumstances, including nature of offence, number of accused and witnesses, the workload of the

Court concerned, prevailing local conditions and so on what is called, the systematic delays.

In the case at hand, there are five accused persons including the petitioner. The charge is that the accused persons, in furtherance of their common

intention, cheated the grandson of the Informant by inducing him to deliver more than 6 lakh rupees for opening a petrol pump / filling station, and

committed other offences, such as, impersonation, forgery of documents etc. Taking note of the nature and gravity of the charge and other attendant

circumstances, and also being alive to the law propounded by the Apex Court on the point of delay in the proceeding / conclusion of trial, this Court

does not find it permissible to direct for closure or quashment of the proceeding. However, since it is a year-old case, the trial Court shall do well to

conclude the trial within six months of restoration of normal functioning of the Court. The learned District & Sessions Judge, Boudh shall also see that

the case is concluded within the period stipulated impressing upon the Superintendent of Police concerned to ensure the production of the witnesses.

Hence, the CRLMC stands dismissed.

L.C.R. received be returned forthwith and a copy of this order be also communicated to the learned District & Sessions Judge, Boudh as well as

the Superintendent of Police, Boudh forthwith.

As the restrictions due to resurgence of COVID-19 situation are continuing, learned counsel for the parties may utilize a printout of the order available

in the High Court’s website, at par with certified copy, subject to attestation by the concerned advocate, in the manner prescribed vide Court’s

Notice No.4587, dated 25th March, 2020 as modified by Court’s Notice No.4798, dated 15th April, 2021.

……………………….