Research › Search › Judgment

Orissa High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 1018 (ORI)

Narahari Rout v. State of Orissa

2017-09-11

S.K.SAHOO

body2017
JUDGMENT : S.K. SAHOO, J. 1. The petitioner Narahari Rout has filed this application under section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code to quash the charge sheet dated 11.12.2002 filed against him in connection with Sahidnagar P.S. Case No. 201 of 2001 under sections 279/304-A of the Indian Penal Code which corresponds to G.R. Case No.1979 of 2001 pending in the Court of learned S.D.J.M., Bhubaneswar. 2. It appears that on the basis of the first information report lodged by one Pratap Rudra Das, younger brother of Pradipta Kishore Das (hereafter ‘the deceased’), Sahidnagar P.S. Case No. 201 dated 18.06.2001 was registered under sections 279/304-A of the Indian Penal Code wherein it is indicated that the driver of the Ambassador car bearing registration no.OSU-5457 caused the accident while the deceased was proceeding to the office on 30.05.2001 in a scooter on the road near Regional College Chhak, Unit-9, Bhubaneswar. 3. During course of investigation, after examination of the relevant witnesses present at the spot and also after ascertaining that the petitioner was the driver of the offending vehicle, charge sheet was submitted against him under sections 279/304-A of the Indian Penal Code. 4. Mr. Brajakishore Sahoo, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner challenged the charge sheet mainly on the ground that even though the occurrence alleged to have taken place on 30.05.2001 but the first information report was lodged on 18.06.2001 and therefore, the possibility of concocting a case and substituting the Ambassador car bearing registration no.OSU-5457 as the offending vehicle cannot be ruled out. 5. On perusal of the materials available on record particularly the statement of the informant, it indicates that the accident in question took place on 30.05.2001 and thereafter, the deceased was treated at S.C.B. Medical College and Hospital, Cuttack and he breathed his last in the intervening night of 09/10.06.2001 while undergoing treatment. The informant has stated in the F.I.R. that he remained busy for the treatment of his deceased brother in different places and thereafter, for performing the obsequies during this period. 6. Law is well settled that the delay in lodging the first information report is not a ground as such to quash the criminal proceeding. It would depend upon certain peculiar facts and circumstances of each case. 6. Law is well settled that the delay in lodging the first information report is not a ground as such to quash the criminal proceeding. It would depend upon certain peculiar facts and circumstances of each case. Whether the informant caused the delay deliberately or intentionally to introduce the offending vehicle or whether delay was inevitable in the nature of things can be adjudicated by the learned trial Court. It appears that some explanation has been given in the first information report and the informant may give further explanation regarding such delay in lodging the first information report during trial. Whether such explanation would be acceptable or not, is the look out of the learned trial Court. At the stage of taking cognizance or framing of charge, delay in lodging F.I.R. cannot be a factor to quash the proceeding. 7. Apart from the statement of the informant, there are other witnesses who have stated about the accident being caused by the offending vehicle bearing registration no. OSU 5457. During course of investigation, the investigating officer proceeded to OSRTC Office, Bhubaneswar after coming to know that the offending vehicle belongs to the General Manager, OSRTC. He collected information from the General Manager that the driver of the offending vehicle on date of occurrence was none else but the petitioner and as such, no illegality can be found with the investigating officer in submitting the charge sheet against the petitioner. 8. Therefore, in view of the available materials on record, I am not inclined to invoke my inherent power under section 482 of Cr.P.C. to quash the charge sheet. 9. Accordingly, the CRLMC application being devoid of merits, stands dismissed. Any observation made in this judgment shall not prejudice the mind of the learned trial Court in any manner while deciding the trial on merit. 10. The order of interim stay of further proceeding stands vacated. 11. Let a copy of this judgment along with the L.C.R. be immediately sent down to the learned trial Court. Since it is a case of the year 2001, the learned trial Court is directed to proceed with the case with utmost expedition.