Dismissed

Santosh Nayak v. State of Odisha

Orissa HC12 Jul 2022CRLMC/1637/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This petition sought quashment of offences under the S.C. & S.T. (PA) Act, arguing the Investigating Officer had no jurisdiction to transmit a case discovered during investigation of a different offence since the FIR did not initially disclose the protected-state crime allegation.

What did the court decide?

Petition challenging the order of the J.M.F.C. allowing the transmission of the case to the Special Court under the S.C. & S.T. (PA) Act is dismissed.

Santosh Nayak Vs State of Odisha — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Orissa HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

¶2

CRLMC No.1637 of 2022

Santosh Nayak

…. Petitioner

-versus-

State of Odisha & another

¶7

…. Opposite Parties

¶8

CORAM: JUSTICE S.PUJAHARI

ORDER

12.07.2022

Order No.

1.This matter is taken up through Hybrid mode.

¶14

2.Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner.

¶15

The grievance of the Petitioner in this case is that since the FIR allegation does not disclose any case under the S.C. & S.T. (PA) Act, the I.O thereafter could not have made a prayer to the court that material with regard to commission of offence under the S.C. & S.T. (PA) Act having come out and the J.M.F.C. being bereft of jurisdiction as such may transmit the case to the Special Court under the S.C. & S.T. (PA) Act and pursuant to the same, the J.M.F.C. could not have transmitted the same. Therefore, the Petitioner has come to this Court for quashment of the said offences under the S.C. & S.T. (PA) Act from the investigation.

¶16

The submission advanced by the learned counsel for the Petitioner in this regard is fallacious and misconceived inasmuch as the I.O while investigating into the cognizable offence, if found

¶17

Page 1 of 1

¶18

// 2 //

¶19

any other offence to have been committed during the investigation need not register a fresh FIR for the same, to proceed against the accused persons indicted therein for the same, intimating the court about the same to do the needful if there is any legal impediment or requirement. Hence, in such premises this petition filed challenging the order of the learned J.M.F.C. allowing the prayer of the I.O to transmit the case to the Special Court under the S.C. & S.T. (PA) Act is devoid of merit.

¶20

Further contention of the learned counsel for the Petitioner is that since no material is available before the Special Court, the Special Court should not have entertained the prayer but the same is premature one inasmuch as the Police while investigating into the case made a prayer to the court that the case discloses the offence under the S.C & S.T. (PA) Act which is triable by the Special Court which is the court competent to take cognizance and try the case. Hence, at this stage entertainment of the case by Special Court cannot be questioned on the ground stated.

¶21

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

¶22

(S. Pujahari) Judge

¶23

PKS

¶24

Page 2 of 2

Santosh Nayak v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Santosh Nayak 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

Ganesh@Ganeswar Nayak Vs State of Odisha

Harapriya@Haripriya Giri Vs State of Odisha

Suresh Chandra Barik@Balhi Vs State of Odisha

Gauttam Kumar Sahoo Vs State of Odisha

Basudev Swain Vs Naresh Kumar Singhania

Dharama@Dharmabati Khara Vs State of Odisha