The High Court dismissed the Criminal Miscellaneous Application challenging the order taking cognizance of offences under IPC Sections 307, 506, and others. The court held that the contention denying an attempt to kill was without substance, distinguishing this stage from the charge hearing.
The CRLMC challenging the order of cognizance stands 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.
CORAM : HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE S.PUJAHARI
CRLMC No.2859 of 2010
Radhashyam Biswal & others … Petitioners
State of Orissa.
… Opp. Party
ORDER
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel for the State.
This application under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. has been filed challenging the order dated 22.09.2010 passed by the learned S.D.J.M., Nilgiri in C.T. No.82 of 2010 taking cognizance of the offences under Sections 323/294/307/506/34 of I.P.C.
Considering the nature of accusation appearing against the petitioners that they had made an attempt to kill the son of the Informant, but at the intervention of other villagers, they left him, this Court is of the view that the contention advanced that no offence under Section 307 of IPC is made out against the petitioners and, as such, the court below could not have taken cognizance of the same, is without any substance.
2
Accordingly, this CRLMC filed challenging the impugned order of cognizance being devoid of merit stands dismissed.
However, the aforesaid order of dismissal of the CRLMC shall not preclude the petitioners to raise such contention at the time of hearing on the question of charge and in that event, the Court concerned shall consider and dispose of the same taking note of the facts and circumstances of the case.
The parties may utilize the copy of this order as per the High Court’s Notice No.4587 dated 25.03.2020.
S. Pujahari, J.
MRS
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court should allow the challenge to the order taking cognizance of offences under Section 307 IPC given the recorded facts about intervention and departure.
Whether the contention that no offence under Section 307 of IPC was made out against the petitioners has substance.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Radhashyam Biswal
others
State of Orissa
S.PUJAHARI
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
