Research › Search › Judgment

Orissa High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 545 (ORI)

Babuli @ Pradyumna Kumar Sethy v. State of Orissa

2017-05-09

S.K.SAHOO

body2017
JUDGMENT : S.K. Sahoo, J. Heard Mr. Nirmal Ranjan Routray, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Chitta Ranjan Swain, learned Addl. Standing Counsel for the State. 2. The petitioner Babuli @ Pradyumna Kumar Sethy has filed this application under section 482 of Cr.P.C. for quashing the criminal proceeding in G.R. Case No.270 of 2002 which arises out of Tirtol P.S. Case No.99 of 2002 pending before the Court of learned J.M.F.C., Jagatsinghpur. 3. It appears that on 14.05.2002 on the First Information Report submitted by one Abinash Chandra Mohanty, J.E., Electrical, Rahama(M) Section, Tirtol P.S. Case No.99 of 2002 was registered under section 379 of the Indian Penal Code against unknown persons. During course of investigation, the Investigating Officer found prima facie evidence against seven accused persons including the petitioner and accordingly submitted charge sheet on 12.08.2002 under section 379 of the Indian Penal Code. The learned S.D.J.M., Jagatsinghpur took cognizance of the offence under section 379 of the Indian Penal Code. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner is a Science Graduate from Utkal University and he has got no criminal antecedent and the opposite party no.2 Babuli Mohanty was granted bail by the learned Magistrate on 08.07.2002 in connection with the case and one Harekrushna Mohanty furnished bail bond for the opposite party no.2. It is the further contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that opposite party No.2 Babuli Mohanty after being arrested, stated his name to be Babuli @ Pradyumna Kumar Sethi (petitioner) before the police so also on the subsequent occasions before the learned Court below and the petitioner came to know about the said fact after one advocate of Jagatsinghpur wrote a letter to him stating therein that the opposite party no.2 had gone on bail in the name of the petitioner and if the opposite party no.2 did not turn up, the petitioner would be arrested by the local police as warrant of arrest has been issued for non-appearance of the opposite party no.2. It is the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is no way involved in the case and it is at the instance of opposite party No.2 Babuli Mohanty that charge sheet has been submitted against the petitioner without proper investigation. It is the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is no way involved in the case and it is at the instance of opposite party No.2 Babuli Mohanty that charge sheet has been submitted against the petitioner without proper investigation. It is further contended that the bailor Harekrushna Mohanty was a fake bailor inasmuch as Harekrushna Mohanty who happened to be the paternal uncle of the opposite party no.2 was dead prior to the occurrence. 5. After hearing of learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Addl. Standing Counsel for the State who produced the case diary, I am of the view that the petitioner can very well bring materials on record before the learned Trial Court regarding his non-involvement in the case and false implication at the instance of the opposite party no.2 which shall be duly considered by the learned Court below in accordance with law. At this stage, I am not inclined to entertain this application under section 482 of Cr.P.C. to quash the criminal proceeding. 6. Accordingly, the CRLMC application being devoid of merits stands dismissed.