AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Dr. A. K. Mishra, J
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Standing Counsel.
In this proceeding under section 482, Cr.P.C., prayer is made to quash the order dated 5.4.2017 passed in G.R. Case No.86 of 2012 corresponding
to Berhampur Town P.S. Case No.13 of 2012 taking cognizance for offence under sections 468/420/120(B)/109 of IPC. Learned S.D.J.M.,
Berhampur has found sufficient ground to proceed against six accused persons including the present petitioner.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in the charge-sheet, while describing the brief facts of the case, the identity of the accused Sunita
Panigrahi is stated to be the wife of Rakesh Padhi while she claims to be the wife of Jitun Kumar Padhi against whom a proceeding under section
498(A) IPC was initiated vide G.R. Case No.7 of 2015.
The whole contention of the proceeding is that, she was not the same person whose identity is described in the charge-sheet.
Learned Additional Standing Counsel submits that the identity has been given in the particulars of the accused in the charge-sheet where this
accused Sunita Panigrahi is stated to be the daughter of Subash Chandra Panigrahi. She has also availed the bail order from this court during
investigation and, subsequently, released on bail by the Investigating Officer.
From the above facts, it is clear that in this nature of case the dispute of identity is a defence plea. It can be urged during trial. The same is not to
be done on meticulous analysis of the materials to quash the cognizance order.
In the judgment reported in (2019) 74 OCR (SC) 131; Sau. Kamal Shivaji Pokarnekar vs The State of Maharashtra it is held that:-
 “6.Defences that may be available, or facts/aspects which when established during the trial, may lead to acquittal, are not grounds for quashing
the complaint at the threshold. At that stage, the only question relevant is whether the averments in the complaint spell out the ingredients of a criminal
offence or not.â€
The F.I.R. having disclosed prima facie offence alleged, the principles enumerated in the decision reported in AIR 1992 SC 604: State of Haryana
and Ors. v. Ch. Bhajan Lal and others, to quash the proceeding, are not attracted.
In that view of the matter, I am not inclined to quash the cognizance order dated 5.4.2017 passed in G.R. Case No.86 of 2012 corresponding to
Berhampur Town P.S. Case No.13 of 2012 by the S.D.J.M., Chhatrapur.
Accordingly, the CRLMC stands dismissed.