Disposed

Beleswar Mangaraj v. State of Odisha

Orissa HC8 Dec 2021CRLMC/658/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In two related petitioners challenging cognizance in cross-complaints arising from a bitter dispute, the High Court directed the lower court to tag the cases and try them together under Section 210 Cr.P.C., emphasizing expedited disposal given the decade-long delay.

What did the court decide?

Directed the learned court to tag both the complaint cases arising from Tangi P.S. Case No. 103 and 104(4) and try them together under Section 210 Cr.P.C.

Beleswar Mangaraj Vs State of Odisha — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Orissa HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

¶2

CRLMC No. 6232 of 2014 &

¶3

CRLMC No. 658 of 2020

¶4

CRLMC No. 6232 of 2014

¶5

Dr. Rajendra Prasad Sribastava …. Petitioner

¶6

Mr. S.K. Patnaik, Advocate.

¶7

Versus -

¶8

State of Odisha & Anr. …. Opposite Parties

¶9

Mr. P. Tripathy, Addl. Standing Counsel Mr. P.K Jena. Adv. (for O.P.No.2)

¶10

CRLMC No. 658 of 2020

¶11

Beleswar Mangaraj …. Petitioner
Mr. K. Pradhan, Advocate.
- Versus -
State of Odisha & Anr. …. Opposite Parties
Mr. P. Tripathy, Addl. Standing Counsel
CORAM:
JUSTICE SASHIKANTA MISHRA
ORDER_
08.12.2021

¶12

Order No. 06.

¶13

This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.

¶14

Both these cases filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. are related to each other and were hence, heard together and are being disposed of by this common order.

¶15

The petitioner in CRLMC No. 658 of 2020, namely, Beleswar Mangaraj is the accused in Tangi P.S. Case No. 103

¶16

Page 1 of 4

¶17

dated 05.06.2011 corresponding to G.R. Case No. 625 of 2011 of the Court of Nyayadhikari, Grama Nyayalaya –cumJ.M.F.C., Tangi, wherein the opposite party no.2, namely, Dr. Rajendra Prasad Sribastava is the informant (petitioner in CRLMC No.6232 of 2014).

¶18

The petitioner in CRLMC No. 6232 of 2014, namely, Dr. Rajendra Prasad Sribastava is one of the accused in Tangi P.S. Case No. 104(4) dated 05.06.2011 corresponding to G.R. Case No. 626 of 2011 of the Court of Nyayadhikari, Grama Nyayalaya –cum- J.M.F.C., Tangi wherein the opposite party no.2, namely, Beleswar Mangaraj is the informant/ complainant (petitioner in CRLMC No.658 of 2020)

¶19

In the FIR filed by opposite party no.2 in Tangi P.S. Case No. 103 dated 05.06.2011 (CRLMC No. 658 of 2020) relates to an occurrence which allegedly took place on that day at about 8 AM leading to registration of the case against Beleswar Mangaraj under Sections 452/341/323 of IPC. On the other hand Tangi P.S. Case No. 104(4) dated 05.06.2011 also relates to an occurrence which is also stated to have taken place on the same day at about 2.00 p.m. which was registered under Sections 341/323/294/506/34 of IPC against the accused Dr. Rajendra Prasad Srivastava and four other persons. Be it noted here that originally on such FIR being lodged, the matter was investigated and the case was returned as FIR false but on a protest petition being filed by the informant, namely Beleswar Mangaraj, which was registered

¶20

Page 2 of 4

¶21

as ICC Case No. 239 of 2013 of the court of learned S.D.J.M., Khordha, the said court took cognizance of the offences under Sections 323/506/427/34 IPC. The said order of cognizance being challenged before this court in CRLMC No. 6232 of 2014 this court vide order dated 06.01.2016 directed stay of further proceedings in ICC Case No. 239/2013.

¶22

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners in both the cases and learned Addl. Standing Counsel.

¶23

Undoubtedly, this is a case where after registration of the FIR in Tangi P.S. Case No. 103 dated 05.06.2011, second FIR was lodged as a counterblast. Subsequently, of course, the case has been taken the shape of ICC Case No. 239 of 2013.

¶24

Section 210 of Cr.P.C. reads as under;

¶25

“ 210. Procedure to be followed when there is a complaint case and police investigation in respect of the same offence. ( 1) When in a case instituted otherwise than on a police report (hereinafter referred to as a complaint case), it is made to appear to the Magistrate, during the course of the inquiry or trial held by him, that an investigation by the police is in progress in relation to the offence which is the subject- matter of the inquiry or trial held by him, the Magistrate shall stay the proceedings of such inquiry or trial and call for a report on the matter from the police officer conducting the investigation.

¶26

(2) If a report is made by the investigating police officer under section 173 and on such report cognizance of any offence is taken by the Magistrate against any person who is an accused in the complaint case, the Magistrate shall inquire into or try together the complaint case and

¶27

Page 3 of 4

¶28

the case arising out of the police report as if both the cases were instituted on a police report.

¶29

(3) If the police report does not relate to any accused in the complaint case or if the Magistrate does not take cognizance of any offence on the police report, he shall proceed with the inquiry or trial, which was stayed by him, in accordance with the provisions of this Code.

¶30

Having regard to the discussion on the facts of the case made hereinbefore and the statutory mandate under Section 210 of Cr.P.C. it would be in the interest of justice for both the cases being tagged and tried together. Therefore, without expressing any further opinion in the matter, the CRLMCs are disposed of by directing the learned court in seisin over the matter to tag both the cases referred to above and to try them together. Since the cases have been instituted/ registered more than a decade back, learned trial court shall do well to dispose of the same as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of eight months from the date of communication of this order or production of certified copy, whichever is earlier.

¶31

Issue urgent certified copy as per rules.

¶32

( Sashikanta Mishra)

¶33

Judge

¶34

A.K. Rana

¶35

Page 4 of 4

Beleswar Mangaraj v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Beleswar Mangaraj 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

Manua @ Manoj Kumar Rout Vs State of Odisha

Siba Karua @ Putu Vs State of Odisha

Manoranjan Nayak Vs State of Odisha

Mrutyunjay Jena@Dhulia Vs State of Odisha

Moallim Khan Vs State of Odisha(Vig.)

Nidhia Prusty Vs State