Dismissed
Girish Chandra Pradhan v. State of Odisha
Orissa HCCRLMC/230/2019
Case brief
from the order text
What is this about?
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and…
What the court decided
AI extract
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.230 of 2019
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the State.
This CRLMC has been filed by the petitioner to quash the criminal proceeding initiated against the him vide Special Case No.18 of 2011 pending in the court of learned Special Judge, Angul.
It appears from the materials available on record that huge quantity of Ganja stated to have been seized from the car driven by the petitioner.
Needless to say that law with regard to quashment of the cognizance/prosecution has since been well settled. In the case of Medchl Chemicals & Pharma (P) Ltd. v. Biological E. Ltd., (2000) 3 SCC 269, the Hon’ble Apex Court, while dealing with power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. for quashment of cognizance and prosecution, have held that “Exercise of jurisdiction under the inherent power as envisaged in Section 482 of the Code to have the complaint or the charge-sheet quashed is an exception rather than a rule and the case for quashing at the initial stage must have to be treated as rarest of rare so as not to scuttle the prosecution. With the lodgement of first information report the ball is set to roll and thenceforth the law takes its own course and the investigation ensues in accordance with the provisions of law. The jurisdiction as such is rather limited and restricted and its undue expansion is neither practicable nor warranted. In the event, however, the court on a perusal of the complaint comes to a conclusion that the allegations leveled in the complaint or charge-sheet on the face of its do not constitute or disclose
2
any offence as alleged, there ought not to be any hesitation to rise up to the expectation of the people and deal with the situation as is required under the law. To exercise powers under Section 482 of the Code, the complaint in its entirety will have to be examined on the basis of the allegation made in the complaint and the High Court at that stage has no authority or jurisdiction to go into the matter or examine its correctness. Whatever appears on the face of the complaint shall be taken into consideration without any critical examination of the same. But the offence ought to appear ex facie on the complaint. The truth or falsity of the allegations would not be gone into by the Court at this earliest stage. Whether or not the allegations in the complaint were true is to be decided on the basis of the evidence led at the trial.”
Taking note of the aforesaid case laid down, when the case of the petitioner is addressed, the petitioner appears to have made out no case for quashment of the aforesaid criminal prosecution launched against him on the ground stated.
Accordingly, this CRLMC stands dismissed at the stage of admission.
………………….. S.Pujahari, J.
DA
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Medchl Chemicals & Pharma (P) Ltd. v. Biological E. Ltd.Explained¶6
Medchl Chemicals & Pharma (P) Ltd. v. Biological E. Ltd., (2000) 3 SCC 269 · Who else cites this
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Petitioner
State
S. Pujahari
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court