KAILASH CHANDRA MOHANTY Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed by the petitioner for quashing of the proceeding in S.T. Case No. 59/196 of 2011 pending before the then learned Ad hoc Additional Sessions Judge (F.T.C.) Puri by quashing the order of cognizance as well as the order passed by the learned Ad hoc Additional Sessions Judge (F.T.C.), Puri in the aforesaid sessions case rejecting the application of the petitioner, for discharge.

(2.) Facts reveal that an FIR was lodged by one Jitendriya Pratihari on 17.8.1999 before the I.I.C. Sea Beach Police Station, Puri which was registered under Sections 302/34 IPC read with Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act against one Mintu Sur and one Rintu Sur along with others. It was alleged in the FIR that the uncle of the informant, namely, Babu @ Ramanarayan Pratihari had a cloth shop on the Sea Beach, Puri. On 17.8.1999 at about 8.00 P.M., while the said Babu accompanying one Pratima Bose, who was working in the said shop, went to the rear side of the shop, some unidentified persons all of a sudden came towards Babu, who had a scuffle with them. At that time, one of the persons forcible took Pratima Bose in a Bolero vehicle one, out of the rest, fired at Babu, who sustained serious bleeding injuries due to gun shot and was carried to the hospital, where he succumbed to the injuries. It was further alleged in the FIR that the wife of Babu, namely, Pampa along with her two brothers, i.e., Mintu Sur and Rintu Sur, earlier, many a times, threatened Babu that they will kill him, for which they have hired four unidentified persons and arranged their stay at Holiday Home. On receiving the FIR, the Investigating Officer investigated into the matter and ultimately filed charge sheet against 11 (eleven) accused persons including the petitioner. The learned SDJM, Puri on receiving the charge sheet filed under Sections 302/120(B)/201/216/34 IPC read with Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act took cognizance of the said offences against the accused persons named in the charge sheet and issued process against the absconding accused persons. The case was thereafter committed to the Court of Session. During framing of charge, the petitioner filed an application on 1.11.2011 under Section 227 Cr.P.C. praying to discharge him from the charges. The said petition was rejected by the learned Ad hoc Additional Sessions Judge (F.T.C.), Puri by his order dated 22.11.2011.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that during the course of investigation, statement of the petitioner under Section 164 Cr.P.C. was recorded by the learned Magistrate in which the petitioner stated that he was working as a Supervisor in Sriram Apartment along with another staff. The other person went for his marriage for which the owner of the Apartment deputed one Raja, just ten days before the occurrence, to perform the duties of the other staff. The said Raja and the petitioner were staying in the Apartment. On 16.8.1999 about 1.00/1.30 A.M., six persons came in a Maruti Car and woke up the petitioner and Raja. As Raja was acquainted with one of those persons, he allowed them to stay in the site, where they stayed for one day. During their discussion, the petitioner could know about the incident and their intention of visit. Raja told the petitioner about the entire incident and specifically told him that one Chandan has fired a gun shot to a person, near the Sea Beach. Hearing this, the petitioner wanted to inform the owner of the Apartment, but as he was absent, having gone to Balasore, the petitioner returned to the Apartment and found that the said Raja has gone away. Learned counsel further submitted that the entire reading of all the statements of the witnesses recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. would show that the petitioner is in no way implicated with the alleged occurrence and no offence whatsoever is made out to have been committed by the petitioner.