Research › Search › Judgment

Orissa High Court · body

2002 DIGILAW 404 (ORI)

MADHAB CH. JENA @ SUKANTA JENA v. STATE OF ORISSA

2002-07-05

P.K.TRIPATHY

body2002
JUDGMENT : P.K. Tripathy, J. - Heard. 2. In this application u/s 482, Cr.P.C. all the three petitioners pray to quash the order of cognizance dt. 15.10.2001 of the Court of S.D.J.M., Khurda in I.C.C. No. 104 of 2001. It appears from the said order that cognizance of the offence u/s 302/34, I.P.C. has been taken on the basis of a complaint. As stated by learned counsel for the petitioner that complaint was instituted about two years after the date of the occurrence. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners drawing attention of the Court to Annexure-1, a xerox copy of the FIR said to have been lodged by the complainant and the xerox copy of the police papers in connection with death of the deceased states that on the face of such documents the allegation in the complaint appears to be false and frivolous and that is more inferable because of inordinate delay in filing the complaint. Accordingly, he prays to quash the order of cognizance. 4. On a bare perusal of the FIR this Court finds that the informant Sankar Muduli did not scribe that FIR. Who scribed that FIR has not been mentioned there. The contents in the FIR also does not disclose a statement being made by the informant regarding any motor accident. On the other hand, in the FIR, the informant has posed the question as to how death of the deceased has been given the colour of death due to motor accident. Notwithstanding that the O.I.C., Tangi Police Station accepted that FIR and after a superfluous investigation ultimately submitted a Final Report. Learned counsel for the petitioners states that the case was supervised by the Superintendent of Police. That does not sanctify the investigation to give it the seal of approval of truth about what has been noted in the Case Diary. 5. It is stated by petitioners that on 18.9.1999 that Final Report was submitted. Learned counsel for the opposite party states that after receipt of notice only he filed protest petition in the shape of a complaint. Upon perusal of the impugned order in which learned Magistrate has recorded about perusal of the statement of the witnesses recorded during enquiry u/s 202, Cr.P.C. justifying existence of prima facie case, this Court finds that learned Magistrate has not proceeded in any illegal manner so as to interfere with the impugned order. Upon perusal of the impugned order in which learned Magistrate has recorded about perusal of the statement of the witnesses recorded during enquiry u/s 202, Cr.P.C. justifying existence of prima facie case, this Court finds that learned Magistrate has not proceeded in any illegal manner so as to interfere with the impugned order. As this Court feels that the whole fact scenario including the factum of sincere investigation is surrounded by some doubtful circumstances and if either the prosecution i.e. complainant or the defence will explore that aspect in course of the trial, then any material brought on record in that process be duly considered by the trial Court. 6. Simply because the case was supervised by a Superintendent of Police or was investigated by a police officer is not sufficient is not sufficient to seal the fate of the complaint. In the instant case, when there exists sufficient evidence regarding existence of prima facie case for a serious offence punishable u/s 302, IPC, the delay in filing of the complaint can as well be gone into at the trial for due and proper appreciation in accordance with law. When there is allegation supported by prima facie evidence for the offence of murder it will not be permissible to quash the cognizance order and therefore this Court does not find any merit in the prayer of the petitioners. Accordingly, the Crl. Misc. Case stands dismissed. 7. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioners states that all the three petitioners shall surrender and apply for bail by 19.7.2002 in the said complaint. He further states that direction may be given to dispose of the bail applications by the Courts below on the same day because learned S.D.J.M. has no jurisdiction to grant bail when the offence alleged is u/s 302, IPC. Considering the said submission this Court observes that in the event all the petitioners shall surrender and apply for bail by the aforesaid date, both the Courts below may do well to consider the bail applications in accordance with law but expeditiously. Final Result : Dismissed