In a criminal revision, the High Court dismissed the petition challenging the framing of charges under the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. Finding the ingredients of the offences clearly made out on record, the Court held the Trial Court had not committed any illegality.
The revision petition 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.812 of 2015
19.09.2016
Heard Mr. Basudev Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioners and learned coun
sel for the State.
The petitioners have challenged the order dated 13.10.2015 passed by the learn
ed Additional Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge, Bhawanipatna in C.T. No.20 of 2015 (Special Ac
t) in framing charges under sections 341/323/332/294/506/34 read with section 3(1)(x) of the S
C/ST (PA) Act. The said case arises out of M.Rampur P.S. Case No.125 of 2013.
As it appears, the impugned order was challenged by the petitioners in an appl
ication under section 482 Cr.P.C. in CRLMC No.4918 of 2015 which was withdrawn dated 24.11.201
5.
The learned counsel for the petitioners contended that at the instance of the
petitioner no.1, a complaint case bearing I.C.C. Case No.06 of 2014 was instituted in the Cour
t of learned J.M.F.C., M. Rampur in which cognizance has already been taken under sections 147
/326/307/394/506/452/34 of the Indian Penal Code and the accused persons in that case are Dhar
anidhar Jena and Kumuda Kanta Jani (who is the informant in this case) and they have challenge
d the order of cognizance by filing an application under section 482 Cr.P.C. before this Court
vide CRLMC No.3377 of 2014 in which further proceeding of the Court below has been stayed vid
e order dated 18.07.2014.
Learned counsel for the petitioners further submitted that the allegation agai
nst the petitioners are
false and fabricated and the petitioners have sustained injuries on their person during course
of the occurrence and the date, time and place of occurrence in both the cases are same.
Learned counsel for the State vehemently opposed to the prayer made by the lea
rned counsel for the petitioners and submitted that there are sufficient grounds for proceedin
g against the petitioners and they have assaulted the public servant on duty and therefore, th
e revision petition should be dismissed.
Perused the First Information Report as well as the connected documents. On p
erusal of the materials available on record, I find that the ingredients of the offences are c
learly made out and therefore, at this stage, it cannot be said that the learned Trial Court h
as committed any illegality in framing charges. Therefore, I am not inclined to interfere with
the impugned order and accordingly, the revision petition stands dismissed.
The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that since the proceeding of
the other case has been stayed by this Court in CRLMC No.3377 of 2014, order may be passed to
list that matter at an earliest.
The Registry is directed to list the CRLMC No.3377 of 2014 before the appropri
ate Bench at an earliest.
S. K. Sahoo, J.
sisir
4
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the learned Trial Court committed any illegality in framing charges under sections 341/323/332/294/506/34 read with section 3(1)(x) of the SC/ST (POA) Act.
Whether the petitioners should be discharged or the revision against framing charges should be allowed.
3 provisions across 2 enactments
Petitioners
State
S. K. Sahoo
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court