Research › Search › Judgment

Orissa High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 389 (ORI)

Motiram Pandey v. State Of Odisha

2019-05-13

S.PUJARI

body2019
JUDGMENT S. Pujari, J. - Heard, the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the State. 2. This application under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short "Cr.P.C.) has been filed by the petitioner challenging the order dated 29.03.2019 passed by the learned Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge, Nuapada in S.A. No. 93 of 2016 framing charge against the petitioner under sections 294, 323, 354, 307 of I.P.C. and Section 3(1) (r)/2(va) of the S.C. & S.T. (PA) Act. 3. The materials available on record would go to show that the aforesaid charge having been framed against the petitioner vide the impugned order, he has come to this Court for quashment of the said order. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in the aforesaid case the petitioner has been charge-sheeted for alleged commission of offence under Sections 294, 323, 354 of IPC read with Section 3(1) (r)(s)/ 2(va) of the SC & ST (PA) Act, However though the petitioner was charge-sheeted for the said offences and no material being there against him under Section 307 of IPC, he was not charge-sheeted for the same, hence framing of charge against the petitioner for the said offence vide the impugned order is without any materials. Accordingly, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the charge for the said offence under Section 307 of IPC is liable to be quashed, more so when the Court has assigned no reasons in the impugned order indicating the materials which compelled the Court to presume the sufficiency of the grounds to proceed against the petitioner for the said offence. 5. Per contra, learned counsel for the State would submit that the Court is not required to pass a reasoned order when an accused is proceeded with for certain offences as charge can be framed when there are sufficient ground for presuming the offence to have been committed and also on strong suspicion to presume the same and it is only in the circumstances when someone is discharged, the Court is required to assign reasons. Therefore, when in this case, the trial Court perusing the materials available on record framed the charge against the petitioner coming to a conclusion that there are sufficient ground for presuming the petitioner to have committed the offence, the petitioner could have no grievance against framing of such charge, particularly when the same has caused no prejudice to him, more so when the Final Form submitted does not fetter the jurisdiction of the Court to take cognizance / frame charge of particular offence which is not mentioned in the Final Form including proceeding against the accused persons who are not charge-sheeted in such cases, is the well settled position of law. 6. There is no reproach that the Court can proceed against the accused, even if he has not been charge-sheeted for any particular offences, but from the materials available on record, the ingredients for the said offences in which the accused is proceeded with, must be there on record. So also, for framing of the charge though the Court is not supposed to assign the reasons if it is found from the materials on record that there are sufficient grounds to presume the accused to have committed such offences, but in case of discharge, the Court is required to assign reasons. However, in this case, as it appears that the petitioner was not charge-sheeted for the offence under Section 307 of IPC, but the Court came to a conclusion that sufficient grounds are there presuming the petitioner to have committed the said offence. However, in this case, as it appears that the petitioner was not charge-sheeted for the offence under Section 307 of IPC, but the Court came to a conclusion that sufficient grounds are there presuming the petitioner to have committed the said offence. When the police in exercise of its statutory power, after a due investigation has not charge-sheeted the accused for certain offences, the Court in such cases while disagreeing with the opinion of the police and proceeding against the accused for any offence not mentioned in the Final Form filed under section 173 of Cr.P.C., 1973 it ought to have mentioned in the order, the reason of its proceeding against the accused for the said offence while framing charge, especially when the accused had made prayer for discharge, even though it is refused to discharge the accused As in this case, the order of framing charge impugned does not reveal the same, I am in agreement with the contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner and, as such, dispose of this CRLMC at the stage of admission with a direction to the petitioner to file and move with a petition under section 216 of Cr.P.C., 1973 before the trial Court for alteration / deletion to the charge under Section 307 of IPC along with the certified copy of this order, within six weeks hence and if such a petition is filed, the Court concerned shall dispose of the same within a period of fifteen days of making of such motion by the petitioner in its own merit. 7. It is made clear that this Court has expressed no opinion on merit of such motion to be made in any manner. 8. Issue urgent certified copy as per rules. Order accordingly..