Research › Search › Judgment

Orissa High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 464 (ORI)

BHIKARI CHARAN BEHERA v. STATE OF ODISHA

2018-04-23

S.K.SAHOO

body2018
JUDGMENT : S.K. Sahoo, J. - Heard Jyotirmaya Sahoo, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Arupananda Das, learned Addl. Government Advocate for the State. 2. The petitioner Bhikari Charan Behera in this application under Section 482 Cr.P.C., 1973 has challenged the impugned order dated 25.10.2015 passed by the learned S.D.J.M., Kuchinda in G.R. Case No. 365 of 2015 in taking cognizance of the offence under Section 354-A(i) of the Indian Penal Code. 3. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that prior to the institution of the F.I.R. by the informant, Govindpur PS. Case No. 168 of 2014 was instituted on 18.12.2014 against the husband of the informant and the petitioner is the Investigating Officer of the said case, for which a false case has been foisted against the petitioner. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner placed the copy of the charge sheet which indicates that the petitioner who was the A.S.I of Police of Govindpur police station visited the house of the informant with civil dress on 02.07.2015 and finding the informant alone, he went inside her house, introduced himself as the police officer of Govindpur police station and asked the informant to have a cup of tea and while receiving the tea, the petitioner caught hold of the hands of the informant and forced to shake the hand. He also asked the informant for a hug and thereafter, he left the place and asked the informant not to disclose the matter before anybody. The Investigating Officer found prima facie case against the petitioner for commission of offence under Section 354-A (i) of the Indian Penal Code and accordingly submitted charge sheet. 5. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner whether a false case has been foisted against the petitioner as the husband of the informant was an accused in Govindpur P S. Case No. 168 of 2014 is to be adjudicated by the learned Trial Court during trial. On such ground, the proceeding which has been instituted against the petitioner cannot be quashed 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that in absence of sanction order under Section 197 Cr.PC., from the competent authority, the impugned order of cognizance is bad in law Since the act complained against the petitioner appears to have no connection with the official duty, I am of the view that n sanction is necessary. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that in absence of sanction order under Section 197 Cr.PC., from the competent authority, the impugned order of cognizance is bad in law Since the act complained against the petitioner appears to have no connection with the official duty, I am of the view that n sanction is necessary. 7. Therefore, I am not inclined to interfere with the impugned order of taking cognizance invoking the inherent power under section 482 of Cr.P.C, 1973which is to be exercised very sparingly and only in exceptional cases to prevent abuse of process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. 8. Accordingly, the CRLMC application stands dismissed.