The High Court dismissed the criminal revision petition challenging the rejection of discharge and framing of charges in a breach of peace case. The Court found sufficient ground to presume guilt despite the petitioner's contentions regarding the FIR and statement.
The Criminal Revision (CRLREV No.641 of 2016) was dismissed.
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.
CRLREV No.641 of 2016
20.09.2016
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the State.
The petitioner has challenged the order dated 26.07.2016 passed by the Asst. Sessions
Judge, Athagarh in S.T. Case No. 72 of 2015 in rejecting the petition filed by the petitioner
under section 227 Cr.P.C. for discharge and also framing charges under sections 448/341/323/30
7/506 /34 of the Indian Penal Code.
The sole contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that though in
the First Information Report the informant has not named the petitioner as an accused and he
has named other co-accused persons and in the 161 Cr.P.C. statement, though the informant has
named the petitioner but no specific overt act has been alleged against him. He files the copi
es of the statements as well as the charge sheet.
It appears from the available materials on record that during course of investigation,
the investigating officer visited the spot, examined the witnesses and it was found that Jiba
n Chandra Nayak was seriously assaulted by Prafulla Kumar Dehury and subsequently he was also
assaulted by the accused persons for which injured was admitted in Kanpur P.H.C. and then he w
as referred to S.C.B. Medical College and Hospital, Cuttack for better treatment and the Inves
tigating Officer finding sufficient materials against the petitioner and other co-accused pers
ons submitted charge sheet against them on 17.10.2000 under sections 448/341/323/307/506 of th
e
Indian Penal Code.
On perusal of materials available on record, I find that there are grounds for presumi
ng that the petitioner and other co-accused persons have committed the offence and as such, it
cannot be said that the impugned order suffers from any infirmity or illegality and therefore
, I am not inclined to entertain the Criminal Revision.
Accordingly, the CRLREV stands dismissed.
S. K. Sahoo, J.
2
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the impugned order rejecting the petition for discharge and framing charges suffers from infirmity or illegality.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
The Petitioner
The State
S. K. Sahoo
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court