PRANAB KUMAR PRADHAN Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Seeking quashing of the order dated 6.9.2010 passed by the learned S.D.J.M., Bargarh in G.R. Case No. 492 of 2010, by which cognizance of offence under Sections 379 /411 /414 /34 IPC was taken against the petitioners, the petitioners have preferred the present Criminal Misc. Case under Section 482 Cr.P.C. It appears from the facts of the case that the Sub-Inspector, Town Police Station, Bargarh, upon receiving the information stated to be from a reliable source, about a stolen Xylo Mahindra Car bearing registration No. OR-15-P-6530 has been sold by one Sailendra Sharma to Tanuj Birmiwal, who, in turn, sold It one Pranab Kumar Pradhan (petitioner No. 1) working as Sub-Inspector of Police, Bargarh, lodged an FIR. It is further alleged that after receiving the information, initially the Sub-inspector made a Station Diary Entry and caused an enquiry, from which, he came to know that the said car is being run at Vedanta Alumina, Lanjigarh on hire. It was also ascertained that the vehicle in question was engaged at Alfalevel (P) Ltd. of Vedanta, Lanjigarh site in place of Bolero bearing registration No. OR-08-B-2651. The vehicle was given on hire by a Contractor, Jitendra Kumar Mohapatra and brother of Pranab Kumar Pradhan, who was working as a Constable at Special Branch. After verification of the documents of the vehicle, it was ascertained that the Xylo Car stands in the name of one Raju Saa, S/o. late Netrananda Saa of College Road, Bargarh. One Upendra Kumar Chhattria was the driver of the vehicle. The said informant Sub-Inspector seized the vehicle on 6.7.2010 in presence of the police witnesses. On lodging of the FIR, investigation was started and the I.O. recorded the statement of the said Upendra Kumar Chhatria, the alleged driver of the Xylo Car, Dillip Kumar Swain, the Sub-Inspector of Town Police Station, Bargarh and one Ganesh Prasad Kolet, Assistant Sub-Inspector of Town Police Station, Bargarh as well as the said Jitendra Kumar Mohapatra, who has engaged the vehicle in Vedanta Company on hire basis and one Sailendra Sharma, who is alleged to have stolen the vehicle in question.

(2.) Mr. N.C. Pati, learned counsel for the petitioners vehemently urged that a bare reading of the case diary containing the statement of the witnesses examined during the investigation would go to show that there is no iota of material implicating the present petitioners with the alleged offences. He further submitted that the learned S.D.J.M. without applying his judicial mind mechanically took cognizance of the offences against the petitioners and, therefore, the said order is liable to be quashed and the said case registered on the charge sheet as G.R. Case No. 492 of 2010 is also liable to be quashed.

(3.) Learned counsel for the State, on the contrary, while producing the case diary, submitted that from the charge sheet itself, it is revealed that during the course of investigation, the I.O. visited the spot, perused the seizure list prepared by the Sub-Inspector--Dillip Kumar Swain and collected all documents with regard to the vehicle in question from the R.T.O. Office, Sambalpur. The I.O. also ascertained that there is no person, named as Raju Saa of College Road, Bargarh in whose name, the Xylo car was registered. The said car was stolen by Sailendra Sharma and Raju Gujjar from Jeypore Town in which connection, Vidyadhar Nagar P.S. Case No. 225 dated 10.5.2010 under Section 394 IPC was registered. From the materials on record, a prima facie case was well made out against the accused-petitioners. From the affidavit sworn to by one Upendra Kumar Chhatria, the alleged driver, it appears that he has stated that he has no knowledge about any sale transaction of the alleged stolen Xylo car.