SUBASH CHANDRA SAMANTRAY Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner is the accused in G.R. Case No. 73 of 1999 of the Court of Additional Sessions Judge -cum -Special Judge, Khurda, arising out of Chandaka P.S. Case No. 74 of 1999, involving offences punishable under Ss. 354/506, Indian Penal Code read with Sec. 3 of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, (in short "the Act"). Petitioner has prayed to quash the said criminal proceedings on the grounds that:

(2.) This case was heard along with the batch of cases involving the offence under Sec. 3 of the Act with similar and other contentions and each of the cases has been disposed of by separate judgments delivered today. In this case also this is the separate judgment. It be noted here that both the parties have consented for disposal of the application under Sec. 482, Code of Criminal Procedure at the stage of admission.

(3.) Learned Counsel for the Petitioner argued that documents vide Annexures 1 to 7 clearly reveal that there is land dispute between the accused and the informant and her group, i.e., her relations and community men. He further argued that because of institution of civil proceeding, passing of status quo order, institution of criminal case on the basis of a complaint filed by the Petitioner and thereafter initiation of proceeding under Sec. 107, Code of Criminal Procedure that resulted in creating the FIR Annexure -8 for setting the criminal case against the Petitioner with imaginary occurrence relating to outraging modesty of the informant. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner thus argued that taking note of all such facts and circumstances it is appropriate to invoke the inherent power to quash the proceeding. Learned Standing Counsel on the other hand opposed to that prayer on the ground of non -completion of investigation. He also argued that nothing prevents the Petitioner to bring such facts to the notice of the Investigating Officer for due verification at the time of investigation. This Court finds substance in the submission of the learned Standing Counsel. Be that as it may, the documents relied upon by the Petitioner ipso facto does not prove his innocence to create a strong ground in favour of his innocency. But that is a matter to be verified either by the Investigating Officer in the course of investigation or by the trial Court at appropriate stage of the Criminal Proceeding. Thus, the Criminal Proceeding is not liable to be quashed on the aforesaid ground.