DAYANIDHI DEHURY Vs. STATE OF ODISHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Instant petition under Sec. 482 Cr.P.C. is filed by the petitioner challenging the order of framing of charge dtd. 19/4/2011 (Annexure-6) and the proceeding in connection with G.R. Case No.145 of 1998 qua him pending in the file of learned S.D.J.M., Sambalpur on the grounds inter alia that such initiation of criminal prosecution against him is ex-facie illegal, hence, in the interest of justice, deserves intervention of this Court in exercise of its inherent power.

(2.) The facts in brief are as follows. A plain paper FIR was lodged with respect to an incident dtd. 30/1/1998, during which, on account of release of water in the Hirakud Dam with opening of two sluice gates, seven students of the UCE, Burla, while taking bath in the river bed at a ghat slipped away and died with the allegation that there has been gross negligence on the part of the petitioner and others on duty. In fact, the report was drawn at the behest of the IIC, Burla P.S., subsequent to which, investigation was held leading to the filing of chargesheet against the accused persons for offences punishable under Sec. (s) 336 and 304-A IPC. Later to the submission of the chargesheet, the learned court below took cognizance of the offences and thereafter, framed the charge by order dtd. 19/4/2011. In other words, the learned S.D.J.M., Sambalpur considering the chargesheet and connected materials was of the view that a prima facie case under the alleged offences to have been made out against the petitioner. The contention of the petitioner is that there is no negligence, inasmuch as, release of the water from the dam was preceded by blowing siren which was ignored by the deceased students. Considering the claim of the petitioner and the criminal proceeding in respect of a co-accused, namely, Ramakanta Mallik having been quashed by order dtd. 5/4/2023 in CRLMC No.3534 of 2011, the Court is to examine, whether, the charge vis-a-vis the petitioner and for that matter, the criminal proceeding against him needs any interference of similar kind.

(3.) Heard Mr. Dhal, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioner assisted by Mr. Anshuman Ray, Advocate and Mr. Patra, learned Additional Standing Counsel for the State.