SRI L. RAMGOPAL RAO Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Petitioner in this case is a practising advocate of Parlakhemedi and has filed this application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure with a prayer to discharge him and quash the proceeding in S.C. No. 20/1983 pending against him in the court of the learned Assistant Sessions Judge. Parlakhemedi and to set aside the order in Annexures -4, 5 and 6.

(2.) IN this application under Section 482 it has been alleged that die Petitioner is a leading citizen of the town and was previously the Vice -Chairman of the Parlakhemedi Municipality and at present continuing as a sitting Councillor of the said Municipality. According to him he being a social worker he had occasion of addressing meetings and taking leading part in various activities for which some people of the locality have developed animosity against him. In the application various litigations have been mentioned to have been initiated against the Petitioner, most of which met an unsuccessful end. The Petitioner further alleges that he was the lawyer against the officer -in -charge of the local police station in a civil suit for which he was displeased with him. On 1 -4 -1982 an F.I.R. was lodged by one Mohan Sahukar against whom the Petitioner had filed a suit as the lawyer for the Plaintiff I. Venkata Rao on the allegations that on the said date at about 9 p.m. he (Informant) along with some others were sitting on the verandah of his uncle when 9 persons came and abused them due to prior enmity. When the informant and others protested they went back and after half an hour came in a larger group of about 20 persons armed with axe, lathi bomb etc. They are alleged to have hurled I some bombs towards the informant party and to have set fire to three cow sheds of one Hrudayananda Sahukar and of the informant. The informant alleged that he doubted that the Petitioner and others might have advised the accused persons to commit the aforesaid offence. It is stated that during the course of investigation police recorded statements of certain persons and the statements of Kamal Nabham and S. Laxminarayan were recorded under Section 164, Code of Criminal Procedure. According to the statement of the said persons, at about 3 months back when they were returning from Sidha Madaga at about 9 p.m. in the night they found 3 persons including the Petitioner standing on the Tinichoka Road and a bout 8 persons were standing on the other side of the road and some time thereafter they found that the houses of the aforesaid persons have been set on fire. It was registered as G.R. Case No. 129 of 1982. Charge sheet under Sections 147, 149, 148, 436, 337, 323, 286, 186, 114, I.P.C. and under Section 4(3) of the Indian Explosives Act has thereafter been filed against the Petitioner and some others. The allegation in the charge sheet against the Petitioner is confined to offence under Sections 114/436, I.P.C. The Petitioner thereafter moved the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Parlakhemedi for his discharge. But the said petition was rejected on merits. The Petitioner also moved the learned Sessions Judge, Ganjam in Cr. Rev. No. 117/1983G but the learned Sessions Judge confirmed the order of the learned Assistant Sessions Judge. The Petitioner invokes the inherent powers of this Court under Section 482, Code of Criminal Procedure to quash the proceeding so far as he is concerned.

(3.) THE inherent jurisdiction of the High Court may be exercised to quash the proceeding in proper cases either to prevent the abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. Though ordinarily the High Court would not interfere at an interlocutory stage of a criminal proceeding pending in a subordinate court, it would do so, in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction, where there is an exceptional and extraordinary reason in order to prevent abuse of the process of the court or where such interference is necessary to secure the ends of justice. There may be the cases where the allegations made against the accused in the F.I.R. or the complaint taken at their face value do not constitute the offence alleged. In such cases there is no question of appreciating the evidence and the High Court may exercise of its powers under Section 482, Code of Criminal Procedure to quash the proceeding. There may be cases where the allegations made against the accused do constitute of an offence but there is no legal evidence m support of the accusation or the evidence adduced Clearly and manifestly fails to prove the charge. In such cases the jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 482, Code of Criminal Procedure may be available to be exercised in order to prevent the harassment of a party to go through the ordeals of a trial. But cases where there is legal evidence on record which mayor may not support the accusation depending upon the appreciation thereof. In exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 482 the High Court would not embark on an enquiry as to whether the evidence on record on reliable or not and therefore in such cases where the exercise of jurisdiction under Section 482, Code of Criminal Procedure depends upon appreciation of evidence, the High Court would not interfere to quash a proceeding. The present case does not fall within the first two categories of cases enumerated above.