Research › Search › Judgment

Orissa High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 770 (ORI)

Manas Naik @ Manas Kumar Naik v. State Of Orissa

2018-08-28

S.K.SAHOO

body2018
JUDGMENT S.K. Sahoo, J. - Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. 2. The petitioner Manas Naik @ Manas Kumar Naik has filed this application under section 482 Cr.P.C., 1973 for quashing the impugned order dated 04.09.2010 passed by the learned S.D.J.M., Athagarh in C.T. Case No. 342 of 2009 in taking cognizance of the offences under section 392 of the Indian Penal Code and sections 25/27 of the Arms Act. The said case arises out of Athagarh P.S. Case No. 110 of 2009. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that one of the co-accused namely Anam Pirei faced trial in the Court of learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Athagarh in Sessions Trial No. 549 of 2010 under section 392 of the Indian Penal Code and sections 25/27 of the Arms Act and vide judgment and order dated 22.01.2014, he has been acquitted of the charges. It is contended that no fruitful result would come out if the proceeding against the petitioner is allowed to continue. Learned counsel highlighted that the co-accused Anam Pirei who has been acquitted was identified in the T.I. parade. 4. Learned counsel for the State on the other hand has produced the case dairy and submitted that the petitioner was an absconder as per charge sheet and the informant has named the petitioner in the 161 Cr.P.C. statement as one of the culprits and there are criminal antecedents against the petitioner and therefore, it is not a fit case to quash the impugned order. 5. On perusal of the judgment passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Athagarh in respect of co-accused Anam Pirei, it appears that the learned trial Court has assessed the evidence of eight witnesses examined on behalf of the prosecution and also the documentary evidence and after assessing the same, he came to hold that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the charges against the said accused beyond all reasonable doubt. However, what sort of materials would come against the petitioner if he faces the trial, cannot be anticipated at this moment. Moreover merely because the co-accused after facing trial has been acquitted, cannot be a ground to quash the criminal proceeding against the petitioner who was an absconder as per the charge sheet. 6. However, what sort of materials would come against the petitioner if he faces the trial, cannot be anticipated at this moment. Moreover merely because the co-accused after facing trial has been acquitted, cannot be a ground to quash the criminal proceeding against the petitioner who was an absconder as per the charge sheet. 6. Therefore, on the available materials on record, particularly when the petitioner has been named by the informant to be one of the culprits, I am not inclined to accept the prayer made in this application to quash the criminal proceeding. Accordingly, the CRLMC application stands dismissed.