Research › Search › Judgment

Orissa High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 294 (ORI)

Dayanidhi Behera v. State of Orissa

2005-05-02

A.K.SAMANTARAY

body2005
ORDER 2.5.2005 — Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Addl.Standing Counsel appearing for the State. This petition under Section 482, Cr.P.C. is disposed of at the stage of admission with the consent of both the parties. This petition under Section 482. Cr.P.C. has been filed to quash the proceeding in G.R. Case No. 175 of 1999 pending before the learned J.M.F.C. Khandapara in respect of this petitioner. The fact giving rise to the petition is that on the F.I.R. lodged against this petitioner and 15 others, and Khandapara P.S. Case No.92 of 1999 was registered and subsequently after investigation by the I.O. the I.O. submitted charge sheet excluding this peti¬tioner and two others. But after submission of charge sheet, the learned Magistrate without any valid ground and without any material on record, took cognizance of the offences and directed issue of process against this petitioner and two others arraying them as the accused persons in the said G.R. Case. These three added accused persons namely, the present petitioner, Rameswar Satpathy and Pravakar Siromani filed a petition before the learned Magistrate for recalling the order of cognizance and issue of summons to them. But the same was rejected and as such Rameswar Satpathy and Pravakar Siromoni preferred revision before the Addl.Sessions Judge, Nayagarh, who recorded the finding that there was absolutely no material on record to proceed against them and simple suspicion without any material would not be the basis of taking of cognizance and issuing process against them and allowed the revision. This petitioner, who did not prefer revision before the learned Addl.Sessions Judge has come over to this Court to quash the proceeding as against him since he stands on the same footing. After going through the order impugned and the orders passed by the learned Addl.Sessions Judge. I find that there is admittedly no material against this petitioner to implicate him in the aforementioned G.R. Case No. The learned Magistrate smelt some foul play by the I.O. and on that basis but without any material on record took cognizance, to proceed against the peti¬tioner which would be simply a futile exercise and that would abuse the process of the Court. In that view of the matter, I allow this Crl.Misc. Case and quash the proceeding in G.R. Case No. 175 of 1999 in respect of this petitioner namely, Dayanidhi Behera. Crl. Misc. In that view of the matter, I allow this Crl.Misc. Case and quash the proceeding in G.R. Case No. 175 of 1999 in respect of this petitioner namely, Dayanidhi Behera. Crl. Misc. Case is disposed of. UCC of this order be granted as per rules. CRLMC disposed of.