Research › Search › Judgment

Orissa High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 234 (ORI)

Debi Prasad Mohanty v. State of Orissa

2012-05-08

M.M.DAS

body2012
JUDGMENT M. M. DAS, J. This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the petitioner to quash the F.I.R. dated 18.1.2009 registered as Chandaka P.S. Case No. 5 of 2009 corresponding to G.R. Case No. 154 of 2009 pending before the learned S.D.J.M., Bhubaneswar. 2. An FIR was lodged by the A.S.I. of Police, Nandankanan Out Post, namely, Shri Kailash Chandra Bhoi, on 18.1.2009 in the Chandaka P.S., inter alia, stating that on the said date at about 5.00 P.M., he received reliable information that a group of persons numbering about 5 have assembled at the backside of Botanical Garden office inside the Botanical Garden of Nandankanan in a bush, armed with deadly weapons, preparing to commit dacoity in the nearby villages. They have come to the said place in two motor-cycles. On receiving such information, the informant A.S.I. entered the said fact in the station diary of Nandankanan Out Post vide Station Diary Entry No. 346 dated 18.1.2009 and immediately left the Out Post along with two constables named in the F.I.R. to the spot, to verify the matter. On his arrival at the Botanical Garden Gate, he called the Nandankanan staff members, also named in the F.I.R., to accompany him. On arriving at the place, he heard from a little distance, the voice of some persons in the nearby bush at the backside of the Botanical Garden Office. They carefully advanced towards the spot and surrounded the area and found five persons who were sitting together and talking amongst themselves and over mobile phones about their plan to commit dacoity in the nearby villages. He along with the police staff and the persons accompanying them captured those five persons and at that time, he detected that one of them was carrying a pistol loaded with ammunition in his pant pocket. So, the informant-A.S.I. immediately tried to disarm him, to which he resisted and during the-tussle with him, he fired one shot and tried to escape from the clutches of the informant. Further, he along with the others managed to overpower and disarm the said person. On his personal search, one mobile phone bearing No. 9437043215 of Nokia make was also recovered from his possession. On the query of the informant, the said person disclosed his name and address as Amarender Singh, son of late Kameswar Singh of Madhupatna. Further, he along with the others managed to overpower and disarm the said person. On his personal search, one mobile phone bearing No. 9437043215 of Nokia make was also recovered from his possession. On the query of the informant, the said person disclosed his name and address as Amarender Singh, son of late Kameswar Singh of Madhupatna. At the same time, another person also attempted to run away who was also captured by them. In the process, he sustained inquiries on his face. On asking, he disclosed his name as Kashinath Sahoo and the remaining three persons also disclosed their names to be Devi Prasad Mohanty, Suresh Chandra Panda and Ramnarayan Singh. Two more mobile phones were also recovered from them the numbers of which have been mentioned in the FIR. Two motor-cycles, the registration numbers of which have been mentioned in the FIR were also seized by him. Another ammunition case having "KF 7.65" engraved on it along with fired pellet from the spot were recovered with two bamboo sticks measuring about 4 feet each. The said FIR was registered as alleged commission of offence under Sections 399/402/307 IPC read with Sections 25/27 of the Arms Act. 3. Mr. Dhal, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, who is one of the accused named in the FIR being Devi Prasad Mohanty, submitted that on a bare reading of the FIR it would be seen that the petitioner except on being asked disclosing his name as Devi Prasad Mohanty, there is no other iota of materials to implicate him with the alleged offence. He further submitted that no incriminating materials have been seized from the petitioner. The petitioner is stated to be a Government servant working as Senior Assistant in the Health and Family Welfare Department, Orissa, Bhubaneswar and also working as Advisor of Madhupatna Puja Committee, Cuttack and other accused persons are all respected persons of the said locality of Madhupatna. All the accused persons, as per the contention of Mr. Dhal are Income Tax assesses and the petitioner is also a Trade Union activist. He is also working as President of Orissa State Non-Gazetted Officers Coordination Committee, Bhubaneswar. 4. All the accused persons, as per the contention of Mr. Dhal are Income Tax assesses and the petitioner is also a Trade Union activist. He is also working as President of Orissa State Non-Gazetted Officers Coordination Committee, Bhubaneswar. 4. Learned counsel for the State, on the contrary, submitted that the FIR itself discloses that the alleged offences have been committed by the petitioner and therefore, the plea of the petitioner that no case is made out against him cannot be accepted. 5. In order to appreciate the case of the respective parties, I called for the case diary, which was produced before me. On perusal of the same, it appears that the informant as well as accompanied constables had corroborated the FIR story. The articles seized, such as, motor-cycles and the mobile phones have been given in zima to the respective persons from whom those were seized. The pistol was also returned to the accused Amarendra Singh along with the license, in zima. Though it is stated that the incident took place on 18.1.2009 and the informant who is an ASI seized the articles from the spot, but the seizure lists have been prepared on 7.3.2009 and 21.6.2009 and the articles have also been given in zima on the date when the seizure lists have been prepared. On the face of the seizure lists, it appears that the place of seizure is stated to be Chandaka P.S. and the fact of the seizure is stated to be on being produced by the respective accused persons to whom the seized articles have been given in zima. None of the seizure lists discloses that the seizures were made from the spot. None of the witnesses including the informant have been stated anything to show that the accused persons were discussing among themselves from which it can be suspected that they were preparing to commit dacoity. From the entire case diary, this Court does not find any iota of material to implicate the petitioner and the other accused persons with the alleged offences for which the FIR has been registered. It is well settled in law that if the material does not disclose any offence to have been committed and the case would inevitably end in acquittal, by exercise of power under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the FIR can be quashed. It is well settled in law that if the material does not disclose any offence to have been committed and the case would inevitably end in acquittal, by exercise of power under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the FIR can be quashed. As already stated above, since this Court does not find any prima facie case to have been made out against the petitioner and the other accused persons, the FIR in its entirety registered as Chandaka P.S. Case No. 5 of 2009 corresponding to G.R. Case No. 154 of 2009 pending before the learned S.D.J.M., Bhubaneswar stands quashed. The CRLMC is accordingly allowed. CRLMC allowed.