The Court dismissed a CRLMC challenging the order of taking cognizance under Section 216-A IPC. The petitioner argued lack of material to establish knowledge of the offence. The Court held the plea lacked merit as conspiracy could not be a conjecture.
CRLMC No.5571 of 2015 is dismissed as being devoid of merit.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
CRLMC No.5571 of 2015
01.12.2016 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Addl. Standing Counsel for the St
ate.
The petitioner in this case challenges the order of taking cognizance of the offence u
nder Section 216-A of the IPC and issuing processes against him by the learned JMFC, Aska.
In course of hearing, the learned counsel Mr. M. Acharya submitted the statement of wi
tness-Rama Chandra Parida, to the effect that the present petitioner assisted his brother-Rin
ku @ Manoj Bihari Pattanaik (against whom charge-sheet has been filed under Section 394 of the
IPC) and gave shelter and helped him of absconding, do not make out a case under Section 216
-A of the IPC as there is no material on record that the petitioner knew that the main accused
Rinku has committed the offence under Section 394 of the IPC. However, there is no dispute re
garding the fact that the petitioner and the main accused are siblings. So at this stage the C
ourt cannot enter any such conjectures and surmises to hold that the commission of robbery b
y Rinku @ Manoj Bihari Pattanaik was not known to the petitioner and an offence under Section
216-A IPC is not made out. Moreover, the Honble Supreme Court in the case of State of Haryana
and others versus Ch. Bhajan Lal and others, AIR 1992 SC 604, at Para-109 has stated a note of
caution to the effect that the power of quashing criminal proceeding should be exercised very
sparingly and with circumspection and that too in the rarest of rare cases; the Court will no
t be justified in embarking upon an enquiry as to the reliability or genuineness or otherwise
the allegation made in the F.I.R. or in the complaint and the extraordinary or inherent power
do not confer an arbitrary jurisdiction on the Court to act according to its whims and caprice
. In that view of the matter, this Court is of the opinion that the petitioner has failed to m
ake out a case for quashing the order of cognizance. Hence, this Court is of the opinion that
the CRLMC should be dismissed.
Accordingly, the CRLMC is dismissed being devoid of merit.
PCD
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the petitioner assisted his brother in absconding after committing robbery under Section 394 IPC makes out a case under Section 216-A IPC.
Whether the petitioner has made out a case for quashing the order of cognizance under Section 216-A IPC.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
State of Haryana and others versus Ch. Bhajan Lal and othersReferred¶3
State of Haryana and others versus Ch. Bhajan Lal and others, AIR 1992 SC 604 · Who else cites this
3 provisions across 2 enactments
Petitioner
State of Haryana and others
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court