SATYANARAYAN DASH Vs. STATE OF ODISHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has invoked Sec. 482 Cr.P.C. while assailing the order of cognizance dtd. 23/3/2015 passed in U.I. Case No.61 of 2015 by the learned S.D.J.M., Athagarh while disposing of an application filed by him to reject the Prosecution Report (PR) on the grounds inter alia that it is not tenable in law and hence, liable to be interferred with.

(2.) In fact, the prosecution case in brief is that Gurudijhatia P.S. Case No.19 dtd. 16/2/2011 was registered under Ss. 25 and 27 of Arms Act which was subsequently turned to Sec. 395 IPC and the action was on the strength of a report lodged by the informant with regard to an incident of robbery. In that connection, after the PR was submitted, the petitioner alleged that the allegations to be false and are based on previous ill-feeling. The petitioner appears to have moved the learned court below due to absence of sanction under Sec. 197 Cr.P.C. and on the ground that the PR could not have been entertained in view of Sec. 195(1)(b)(i) Cr.P.C. But the learned S.D.J.M., Athagarh after hearing the parties reached at a conclusion that sanction under Sec. 197 Cr.P.C. is not required in so far as the facts of the case are concerned, where the allegation is of fabrication of records and while concluding so, a decision of the Apex Court in the case of Rajiv Ranjan Vs. R. Bijaya Kumar 2014 (4) Crimes 328 was referred to. Adverting to the contention of the petitioner regarding the immunity enjoyed under Sec. 197 Cr.P.C., the learned court below reached at a decision that such provision would not be attracted in case where a document is alleged to have been falsely created prior to its production or submitted in evidence and in that respect, a judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Iqbal Singh Marwah and another Vs. Meenakshi Marwah (2005) 4 SCC 370 was placed reliance on. Being aggrieved of the aforesaid finding of the learned court below, the petitioner has knocked the portals of this Court with a prayer to quash the impugned order of cognizance under Annexure-3.

(3.) Mr. Mohapatra, learned counsel for the petitioner referred to the following decisions on the point of sanction, such as, Md. Iqbal Ahmed Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh: AIR 1979 SC 677; Jayasingh Vs. K.K. Velayutham and another: (2006) 34 OCR (SC) 517; Dr. Manmath Kumar Behera Vs. State of Orissa: (2002) 22 OCR 560; and Raj Kishore Swain and another Vs. Smt. Ranjana Moharana:(2003) 24 OCR 535 and finally the judgment of the Apex Court in State of Haryana and others Vs. Ch. Bhajanlal and others AIR 1992 SC 604 which is to the quashing of proceedings exercising jurisdiction under Sec. 482 Cr.P.C. on the ground that even if the facts of the PR stand uncontroverted, no prima facie case is made out against the petitioner. As regards, prosecution vis-a-vis compliance of the provisions of Sec. 195 Cr.P.C., Mr.Mohapatra referred to Kailash Mangal Vs. Ramesh Chand: 2015 (61) OCR (SC) 555, Narendra Kumar Srivastava Vs. State of Bihar and others: ; and Central Bureau of Investigation, Lucknow, U.P. Vs. Indra Bhushan Singh and others: (2014) 59 OCR (SC) 183. It is contended that neither for the alleged overt act by the petitioner being a Government servant any sanction was called for by the learned court below nor Sec. 195 Cr.P.C. was adhered to and complied with despite an objection raised and therefore, the impugned order under Annxure-3 cannot sustained in law.