Research › Search › Judgment

Orissa High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 1297 (ORI)

Okil Paikray v. State of Orissa

2017-11-13

S.K.SAHOO

body2017
JUDGMENT : S. K. SAHOO, J. 1. The petitioner Okil Paikray has filed this application under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for quashing the entire proceeding in G.R. Case No.1011(A) of 1995 in which charge sheet has been submitted under sections 457/395 of the Indian Penal Code against eight accused persons including the petitioner which arises out of Chandanpur P.S. Case No.79 of 1995. 2. It appears that the case was instituted on 01.08.1995 on the basis of the first information report submitted by one Gangadhar Mohapatra before the Officer in charge of Chandanpur police station, on the basis of which Chandanpur P.S. Case No.79 of 1995 was registered under sections 457/395 of the Indian Penal Code against unknown persons and after completion of investigation, charge sheet has been submitted against the petitioner and seven others. 3. The sole ground taken in this application under section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing the proceeding against the petitioner is that five of the co-accused persons namely Ghana Baral, Pravakara Mohapatra, Debaraja Jena, Nabaghana Parida and Gauranga Naik have faced trial in the Court of learned Asst. Sessions Judge -cum-C.J.M., Puri in S.T. Case No.104/286 of 1998/1997 and they have been acquitted vide judgment and order dated 06.08.2002. On perusal of the judgment, it appears that the co-accused persons were acquitted on the ground that the inmates of the house of the informant did not implicate those accused persons with the commission of dacoity and the articles which were recovered from the accused persons were not co-related with the crime in question. 4. Mr. Prem Kumar Patnaik, learned Addl. Govt. Advocate on verification of the case diary submits that some of the witnesses have named the petitioner to be one of the culprits and therefore, the case of the petitioner is not similarly situated like the accused persons who have been acquitted by the trial Court. Moreover even the other witnesses to the occurrence who have not named the petitioner, in the event the petitioner is taken into custody, the possibility their identifying the petitioner cannot be ruled out. 5. In a serious offence of this nature, merely because the co-accused persons have been acquitted after facing the Sessions trial, the same cannot be a ground to quash the proceeding against the petitioner. As it appears, the petitioner has been named by same witnesses to be one of the culprits. 5. In a serious offence of this nature, merely because the co-accused persons have been acquitted after facing the Sessions trial, the same cannot be a ground to quash the proceeding against the petitioner. As it appears, the petitioner has been named by same witnesses to be one of the culprits. Other witnesses to the occurrence have claimed that they can identify the culprits. Thus prima facie material is available against the petitioner and possibility of more material coming during course of trial cannot be ruled out. In such a situation, quashing the criminal proceeding against the petitioner would not be in the interest of justice. Therefore, I am not inclined to accept the prayer made by the petitioner in this application under section 482 Cr.P.C. Accordingly, the CRLMC application being devoid of merit stands dismissed.