Nisakar Pati @ Nisamani Pati vs State of Orissa

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

The petitioner Nisakar Pati @ Nisamani Pati has filed this application under section 482 Cr.P.C. challenging the impugned order dated

23.06.2006 of the learned J.M.F.C., Salipur in G.R. Case No. 435 of 2003 in taking cognizance of the offences under sections 379/411/34 of the

Indian Penal Code and issuance of process against him. The said case arises out of Salipur P.S. Case No. 218 of 2003.

One Harekrushna Pati of Village Jahangirabad lodged the first information report before the officer in charge of Salipur Police Station on

27.08.2003 alleging therein that on 26.08.2003 night at about 11.00 p.m. the petitioner had stolen away his two pieces of teak wood. On the

basis of such first information report, Salipur P.S. Case No. 218 of 2003 was registered under section 379 of the Indian Penal Code against the

petitioner. During course of investigation of the case, the teak wood were seized from the backyard of the coaccused Dambarudhar Jena and

basing on his statement, the petitioner was arrayed as an accused in the case. After completion of investigation, charge sheet was submitted against

Dambarudhar Jena, the petitioner and other accused persons under sections 379/411/34 of the Indian Penal Code and section 56 of the Orissa

Forest Act.

Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that there was earlier civil dispute between the parties which is subjudiced for which the case has

been foisted. It is further contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that when the teak wood were seized from the co-accused

Dambarudhar Jena, the petitioner should not have been charge sheeted basing only on the confessional statement of the co-accused. Therefore, it

is a fit case where the inherent power under section 482 Cr.P.C. should be invoked to quash the criminal proceeding against the petitioner.

Learned counsel for the State on the other hand produced the case diary and placed the statements of the witnesses. He does not dispute that

two pieces of teak wood were seized from the backyard of co-accused Dambarudhar Jena and that Dambarudhar Jena has implicated the

petitioner before police and stated that he purchased the teak wood from the petitioner.

Considering the submission made by the learned counsel for the respective parties and the fact that there was civil dispute between the parties

and the only material available against the petitioner is the confessional statement of the co-accused Dambarudhar Jena. I am of the view that

submission of charge sheet against the petitioner on such material was not proper and justified.

Therefore, invoking the inherent power under section 482 of Cr.P.C. and to prevent abuse of process. I am inclined to accept the prayer made

by the petitioner in this application. The criminal proceeding against the petitioner in G.R. Case No.435 of 2013 pending in the Court of learned

J.M.F.C., Salipur stands quashed.

Accordingly, the CRLMC application is allowed.