Dismissed

Golakha B.Mohanty v. Bharat Ch.Sethi

Orissa HC6 Sept 2016CRLMC/1210/2006

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a CriminalMiscellaneous application challenging an order framing charge under IPC Sections 409 and 477-A. The Court rejected the petitioner's plea that cognizance was previously quashed, noting a direction to proceed with the case. No relief was granted, but the trial was directed to be expedited.

What did the court decide?

The application was dismissed. The Trial Court was directed to expedite and conclude the trial within six months.

06.09.2016 Heard Mr. Sopan Kumar Pal, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Lalatendu Jena, learned counsel for the opposite party as well as Mr. Jyoti prakash Patra, learned Addl. Stand ing Counsel for the State.

The petitioner has challenged the impugned order dated 22.03.2006 passed by the learne d S.D.J.M., Jajpur in I.C.C. Case No. 188 of 2002 in which he has framed charge against the pe titioner under sections 409/477-A of the Indian Penal Code after rejecting the petition filed by the petitioner to discharge him.

On perusal of the discharge petition, which has been annexed to this application under section 482 Cr.P.C., it appears that the main ground which has been taken is that in G.R. Cas e No. 894 of 1984, the order of cognizance was quashed and the accused was acquitted by this C ourt in the year 2002 and the institution of the complaint petition was illegal and basing on such complaint petition, charge should not have been framed. Learned counsel for the opposite party filed his counter wherein it is mentioned as fo

11It is pertinent to mention here that on 17.01.1987, a notice u/s 173 Cr.P.C. was rec eived by the Informant, from which he came to know that the Investigating Officer without maki ng any proper investigation into the matter filed. Final Report on 31.12.1986, with an observa tion that though the case u/s 409

IPC is true, due to insufficient of evidence, he filed final report. So, having no other alter native, the opp. party filed a protest petition, with relevant documents on 22.01.1987, being duly authorized for the same.

12. That, it is respectfully submitted that a case vide Crl. M.C. No. 1425/96, was filed b y the petitioner in this Honble court and this Honble court by order dtd. 6.3.2002, was please d to quash the order dtd. 25.4.1987 and dtd. 28.2.1989, with a further direction to the learne d S.D.J.M., Jajpur to proceed with the matter in accordance with Law, treating the protest pet ition filed by the Postal Department as a complaint and accordingly, the protest petition file d by the opp. party on 22.01.1987, was registered as ICC No. 188/2002, and a notice was sent t o the Opp. Party by S.D.J.M., Jajpur, for the purpose of recording his statement u/s 200 Cr.P. C. as it appears from the order dtd. 28.05.2002, passed by the learned S.D.J.M., Jajpur

been quashed by this Court and the petitioner has been acquitted is not correct inasmuch as by virtue of the order dated 06.03.2002, this Court directed the learned S.D.J.M., Jajpur to tre at the protest petition filed by the Postal Department as a complaint and to proceed with the matter. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the opposite party that after submissi on of final report, notice was sent to the opposite party which was received on 17.01.1987 and immediately thereafter, protest petition was filed on 22.01.1987. Therefore, I am of the view that there is absolutely no delay in filing the protest petition after receipt of the notice from the Court of learned S.D.J.M., Jajpur.

Learned Magistrate has been pleased to hold in the impugned order that the petitioner was working as postmaster of Antia Branch Post Office under Jenapur Sub-Post Office during t he relevant period and he has committed the offences under sections 409/477-A of the Indian Pe nal Code.

On perusal of the protest petition which was treated as complaint petition filed today before this Court and on going through the impugned order, I am of the view that there is no illegality or infirmity in the impugned order and therefore, there is no merit in this applica tion.

Golakha B.Mohanty v. Bharat Ch.Sethi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Golakha B.Mohanty v. Bharat Ch.Sethi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Case details

Similar cases

Dillip Kumar Mohanty Vs State of Orissa

Gurubari Naik Vs Jyochhana Naik

Chiranjib Mohapatra Vs Pradipta Ku.Mohapatr

Manoj Kumar Rout Vs State of Orissa

Sarbeswar Nayak Vs State

Kailash Chandra Panda Vs State of Orissa