Research › Search › Judgment

Orissa High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 1191 (ORI)

Arun Kumar Sahoo v. State of Orissa

2017-10-23

S.K.SAHOO

body2017
JUDGMENT : 1. Heard Mr. Abani Kumar Srichandan, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Prem Kumar Patnaik, learned Addl. Government Advocate. 2. In this application under section 482 of Cr.P.C., the petitioner Arun Kumar Sahoo has challenged the impugned order dated 02.11.1992 passed by the learned S.D.J.M., Bhubaneswar in G.R. Case No.3866 of 1991 in taking cognizance of the offences under sections 147/148/149/341/336/332/427/294/506/120-B of the Indian Penal Code read with section 27 of the Arms Act and section 7 of the Criminal Law Amendment Act which arises out of Sahidnagar P.S. Case No.781 of 1991. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the impugned order suffers from non-application of mind and the first information report has been lodged by the Inspector in charge, Sahidnagar Police Station on 03.12.1991 against the students of Utkal University, Vani Vihar. It is further contended that at the relevant point of time, the petitioner was a student of Utkal University and a student leader for which he has been falsely entangled in the case. It is further contended that the allegations are omnibus in nature and there was no clinching materials before the Investigating officer to submit charge sheet against the petitioner which has been done with an oblique motive to harass the petitioner. 4. Learned counsel for the State opposed the prayer and placed the first information report. 5. On perusal of the first information report, it appears that the case relates to students’ unrest inside the campus of Utkal University, Vani Vihar and it is stated about 200 students under the leadership of number of persons including the petitioner formed an unlawful assembly and created disturbance on the date of occurrence and committed certain overtacts. No specific overt act has been attributed against the petitioner. The case was instituted in the college days of the petitioner in the year 1991 which is hunting down after him even after the passage of two and half decades. It is stated that much water has indeed flowed under the bridge since the date of filing of charge sheet in the case and the petitioner has became the elected M.L.A. of Nayagarh Constituency and therefore, the proceeding against the petitioner should be quashed in the interest of justice. 6. The powers possessed by the High Court under section 482 of Cr.P.C. are very wide but its exercise requires great care and caution. 6. The powers possessed by the High Court under section 482 of Cr.P.C. are very wide but its exercise requires great care and caution. The Court has to keep in mind whether failing to use the power for advancement of justice can lead to grave injustice. The High Court can quash the proceeding when allowing the proceeding to continue would be an abuse of the powers of the Court or that ends of justice requires that the proceeding ought to be quashed. A Court proceeding should not be a weapon of harassment or persecution. If a criminal proceeding is initiated on vague accusation for any oblique purpose and the High Court is of the opinion that no useful purpose is likely to be served by allowing such proceeding to continue, the Court can quash such proceeding even at a preliminary stage. 7. Adverting to the contentions raised by the respective parties and after scrutinizing the materials on record, the background of the case and the vague accusation against the petitioner, I am of the humble view that the continuance of the proceeding against the petitioner would amount to abuse of process and therefore, I am inclined to accept the prayer made by the petitioner in this application. The impugned order of taking cognizance and issuance of process against the petitioner so also the continuance of the criminal proceeding against him stands quashed. Accordingly, the CRLMC application is allowed.