Disposed
Gagan Bihari Samal v. State
Orissa HCCRLREV/1042/2014
Case brief
from the order text
What is this about?
The petitioner has filed this revision…
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.
CRLREV NO. 1042 OF 2014
The grievance of the petitioner is that the Investigating Officer while filing the charge sheet in G.R. Case No. 682 of 2011 has not arraigned four other culprits as the accused to face their trial for commission of offence under sections 498(A)/304(B)/306/406/34 IPC along with the four persons shown as accused therein.
The petitioner therefore filed the complaint before the court also to arraign those culprits who have been left out in the charge sheet. The complaint has been dismissed by the impugned order.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the State. Perused the impugned order.
It is submitted at the Bar that the trial of the case is in progress before the learned Sessions Judge, Kendrapara in S.T. Case No. 239 of 2013 and there, this petitioner who happens to be the informant has already tendered evidence so also the other witnesses have been examined.
At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner prays for disposal of the revision, keeping it open for the petitioner to take appropriate step as provided in law in that S.T. Case No. 239 of 2013 now under trial for redressal of her grievance in accordance with law.
Accepting the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner, this revision stands disposed of.
Issue urgent certified copy as per rules.
……………………..
D. Dash, J.
// 2 //
The Petitioner (Informant)
The State
D. Dash
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court