Research › Search › Judgment

Orissa High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 79 (ORI)

Prasanta Kumar Routray v. State of Orissa

2013-03-20

B.K.MISRA

body2013
ORDER 20.03.2013Heard Mr. Sahoo, learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned Addl.Standing Counsel. Learned Addl.Standing Counsel submitted that he has received intimation in writing from the I.I.C. Mahakalapada Police Station that in Mahalakalpada P.S. Case No.100 (22) of 31.05.2012 fourteen persons have already been examined and their statements have been recorded under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C. and besides that some of the persons against whom allegations regarding misappropriation has been made, their statements also have already been recorded. It is further intimated that investigation of the case is in full swing. Mr. Sahoo, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the present petitioner, namely, Prasanta Kumar Routray is being pressurized and threatened by different persons including the I.I.C., Mahakalapada Police Station to withdraw the F.I.R. or otherwise he would be entangled in false cases. The informant apprehends great danger to his life and property because of such pressure tactics by different authorities on him. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and upon hearing the counsel for the respective parties and the very fact that despite direction of the R.D.C., Central Division, Cuttack, Collector, Kendrapara and Superintendent of Police, Vigilance Department, there was inordinate delay in taking action with regard to the investigation into misappropriation of public fund as per the audit report and that there was delay in registering the case, those speaks volumes about the tardy progress of the case. Even if the entire misappropriated amount, as stated by the learned addl.Standing Counsel, has been recovered fully and compliance report has been submitted to the Collector, Kendrapara, action should have initiated against the persons responsible for causing such financial loss to the Government and bungling of public money instead of exerting pressure on the informant for withdrawal of the F.I.R. Thus, considering the seriousness of the allegations of the petitioner, this Court directs the petitioner to make a representation to the Superintendent of Police, Kendrapara regarding the threats he is receiving for withdrawal of the F.I.R. On receipt of such representation from the informant, Prasanta Kumar Routray, the Superintendent of Police, Kendrapara shall himself enquire into the truth or otherwise of the allegations of the petitioner and take appropriate action in the matter so that a public spirited citizen of this country does not feel helpless especially when he raises voice against corruption and tries to become a whistle blower. The Superintendent of Police, Kendrapara may entrust the investigation of the case i.e. Mahakalpada P.S. Case No.100 (22) of 31.05.2012 to any other competent office working under his administrative control so that the trust of the people on the Investigating Agencies and on the criminal justice system is not impaired. With the aforesaid observation the W.P.(Crl.) is disposed of. Issue urgent certified copy as per rules. Petition disposed of.