Ranjan Kumar Khilar vs State Of Odisha Vs

Chittaranjan Dash, J.

By means of the present application, the Petitioner seeks the indulgence of this Court praying to quash the order of cognizance dated 03.08.20115 in G.R. Case No.1102 of 2011 (arising of Ghatgaon P.S. Case No.148 of 2011) passed by the learned S.D.J.M., Keonjhhar under Annexure-2.

The backkground facts of the case are that the Complainant, Basanta Kumar Sahoo, presented a Written Report beefore the IIC, Ghatgaon P.S. on 27.11.2011, alleging that on the prrevious night i.e. 26.11.2011, about 7 unknown persons committed dacoity in respect of one Truck bearing Regd. No. OR-2BED-2836, loaded with iron rods while the vehicle was on N.H. 215 neaar Kukurpota bridge on the point of a pistol. On the basis of such coomplaint, the Ghatgaon P.S. Case No. l48 of 2011 was reggistered and investigation commmenced. Upon completion of the investigation, the Charge-Sheet was submitted implicating the preseent Petitioner as one of the accused in connection with the offfences under Sections 395/4122/109 of IPC, r/w. Section 25 of the Arms Act.

The leaarned S.D.J.M., Keonjhar vide order dated 03.08.2015 haviing found material against the Pettitioner took cognizance to proceed against the Petitioner. The relevvant portions of the impugned order reads as follows:-

“…….Perused the FIR, charge sheets i.e CS. No. 78, dated 04.06.2012 and Supplementary C.S. Noo. 122, dated 28.07.2015, statement of witnesses recorded U/s-161 Cr.P.C and all the documents avaailable therein. There is prima-facie case for the alleged offences U/s 395/412/109 IPC against the accused persons namely Dillip Kumar Behera, Ranjan Kumar Khillar and Nohian @ Narottam Khillar and U/s-395/412/109 IPC/25 Arms Act against the accused persons namely 1. Sonu @Asim Kumar Guha, 2. Chinu @ Chinmaya Jena, 3. Raju @ Sk. Sulemman, 4. Sk. Essann, 5. Papun @ Ranjan Kumar Beheera. 6. Jita@ Kalia @Jitendra Patra, 7. Prafulla Kumar Patra, 8. Papu @ Tapan Kumar Sethy, 9. Dipu @ Deepak Kumar Palei, 10. Rangadhar Dehory. Hence, cognizancce of offence punishable U/s-395/412/109 IPC/25 Arms Act is taken. The accused persons namely 1. Dillip Kumar Behera, 2. Ranjan Kumar Khilar. 3. Nohian @ Narottam Khilar, 4. Soonu @ Asim Kumar Guha, 5. Chinu @ Chinmaya Jeena, 6. Raju @ Sk. Suleman, 7. Sk. Essan, 8. Pappun @ Ranjan Kumar Behera, 9. Jitu @ Kalia @ Jiitendra Patra, 10. Prafulla Kumar Patra, 11. Papu @ Tapan Kumar Sethy, 12. Dipu @ Deepak Kumar Palei are on Courrt bail and the accused person namely Rangadhaar Dehury is absconder. Hand over the record to G/C.”.

The learnned counsel for the Petitioner, in coursse of hearing in this application, submitted that the Petitioner is an innocent person and no material is forthcoming against him either in the FIR or in the statement of the witnesses, involving him in any manner in any of the offenses alleged and therefore, the impugned order taking cognizancce against the present Petitioner is pallpably illegal and cannot sustaiin in the eye of law and this Court in exxercise of the jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.PC may quash the coognizance.

The learned counsel for the State, on the other hand, vehemently oppoosed the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the Petitioner and took this Court to the narration of the brief history given inn the Charge-Sheet beside the statement of the witnesses.

The brief history of the case clearly implicates the Petitioner to be one of thee key-accused in the alleged dacoity of the truck loaded with the iron rods. The truck and the stolen materials have been seized thereein. The submissions of the learned counsel for the Petitioner that the involvement of the Petitioner simply on the basis of the statement of the co-accused that he got him intrroduced with the person who purchased the stolen material is not the sole material. The casse record reveals several facts that direectly connect the Petitioner to the core of the alleged offence. He iss stated to be one of the ten inndividuals who actively participated inn the dacoity on the highway. Therefore, a strong prima facie case is well made out against him, and he cannot be absolved from the riggour of law at this stage.

The Hon’ble Apex Court in its decision in the matter of State of Haryanna vs. Bhajanlal reported in 1992 Supp(1) SCC 335, has laid down the following guidelines for exercise of power under Section 482:-

“(1) Wherre the allegations made in the first information report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie consstitute any offence or make out a case against the accuseed.

(2) Wheree the allegations in the first information report and other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not discllose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Section 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purvieew of Section 155(2) of the Code.

(3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or coomplaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence annd make out a case against the accused.

(4) Wheree, the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognnizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplatedd under Section 1555(2) of the Code.

(5) Wheree the allegations made in the FIR or commplaint are so abssurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which noo prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused.

(6) Wheree there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerneed Act (under whhich a criminal proceeding is instituted)) to the institutionn and continuance of the proceedings and/or where theere is a specific provision in the Code or the concernedd Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party.

(7) Wheree a criminal proceeding is manifestly atttended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge.”

In view of the above, this Court finds it pertinennt to reiterate that while the poower under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is to be exercised sparingly though it can be invoked to prevent abuse of the process of court where the allegations are patently absurd or manifestly attend to implicaate a person without any foundational basis. In the case in hand, the name of the present Petitioner is founnd actively to have participatedd in the alleged dacoity, constituting the offences which requires appreciation of evidence. It is well settled that the pleas advanced by the Petitioner, which pertain to the sufficiency of evidence or suggest a probable defence, cannot be examined within the limited scopee of interference under Section 482 Cr.P.C. at the pre-trial stage. Accordingly, this Court finds no ground to quash the order of cognizannce.

As a resuult, this Court is of the considered opiniion that there is prima facie maaterial against the Petitioner to proceed in trial and this Court is noot inclined to interfere with the imppugned order which is just and proper. However, it is open to the Petitioner to raise all possibble permissible legal and factual plea at the appropriate stage including the stage of framing of charge in accordance with law.

The CRLMC is hence disposed of.

.……………………………………