Dismissed

Prasanta Kumar Mishra v. State of Odisha

Orissa HC4 Sept 2019CRLMC/345/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking quashment of a cognizance order. The court held that investigative defects regarding the collection of an alibi plea do not vitiate the taking of cognizance when uncontroverted allegations indicate the commission of the offense.

What did the court decide?

The prayer to quash the order of cognizance was dismissed.

Prasanta Kumar Mishra Vs State of Odisha — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Orissa HC (2019)

¶1

CRLMC No.345 of 2019

¶2

06. 04.09.2019

¶3

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners.

¶4

This application under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. has been filed by the petitioners with a prayer to quash the order dated 15.5.2014 passed by the learned S.D.J.M., Keonjhar in G.R. Case No.1518 of 2013 taking cognizance of the offences under Sections 341/354/506/34 of I.P.C.

¶5

The petitioners in this case have sought for quashment of the order of cognizance on the ground that investigation is defective as the police, without collecting proper materials, have filed charge sheet against them inasmuch as petitioner no.1 was present in the school at the very time of occurrence, but the same was not collected by the police and charge sheet has been filed and as such, cognizance is bad.

¶6

It is well settled in law that the court at the stage of taking cognizance is not required to make a roving inquiry on the materials produced with the charge-sheet, but to consider the fact whether the uncontroverted allegations available in the materials on record indicates the commission of any offence and if that be so, to take cognizance of the said offence/offences which are made out and then to proceed against the persons-accused of committing such offence by issuing process against them.

¶7

In the light of the aforesaid settled position of law, when in this case it is not disputed that the uncontroverted allegations indicates the commission of offence/offences cognizance of which has been taken by the court concerned and also the same indicates the

¶8

¶9

involvement of the petitioners, the same cannot be found fault with on the ground that the plea of alibi of the petitioners was not collected by the police and there was defective investigation. The plea of alibi cannot be looked into at the stage of cognizance, even if material is collected in this regard alike the defect in the investigation inasmuch as the credibility of the plea of alibi is required to be tested by the evidence to be adduced in the trial and also the impact of defective investigation by the prosecution.

¶10

In the aforesaid premises, I am of the view that the prayer of the petitioners to quash the cognizance on the ground stated is devoid of merit.

¶11

Accordingly, the CRLMC stands dismissed at the stage of admission.

¶12

…………………..

¶13

S.Pujahari, J.

¶14

Prasanta Kumar Mishra v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Prasanta Kumar Mishra v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rohit Menan Vs State of Odisha

Ajay Kumar Mohanty Vs State of Odisha

Kabindra Ch.Nayak Vs State

Chittaranjan Nayak@Chaka Vs State of Odisha

B.Prahalad [email protected] Patro Vs State of Odisha

Bhaskar Nayak Vs State of Odisha