Dismissed

Saroj Kumar Ojha@Saroj Ojha v. State of Odisha

Orissa HC25 Jan 2022CRLMC/2067/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a criminal revision petition. The petitioner alleged suicide, while the State argued the involvement of accused persons must be determined during trial. The court found no infirmity in charge-framing but dismissed the petition without expressing opions on merits.

What did the court decide?

The criminal revision petition under CRLMC No. 2067 of 2021 was dismissed.

Saroj Kumar Ojha@Saroj Ojha Vs State of Odisha — Writ and Judicial Review | Orissa HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

¶2

CRLMC No. 2067 of 2021

¶3

Saroj Kumar Ojha @ … Petitioners Saroj Ojha and others

¶4

Mr. S.R.Mohapatra, Advocate

¶5

Versus -

¶6

State of Odisha … Opposite Party Mr. P.Tripathy, Addl. Standing Counsel

¶7

CORAM: JUSTICE SASHIKANTA MISHRA

ORDER

Order No.

25.01.2022

This matter is taken up through virtual mode.

¶13

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶14

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the deceased committed suicide and there is absolutely no material to show that the petitioners had abated the same. Referring to the Charge Sheet, it is submitted that on the night of the occurrence, the husband of the deceased was intoxicated and found his wife hanging from the ceiling when he woke up in the morning. Learned counsel has also referred to the postmortem report and the deposition of the autopsy surgeon, who was examined as P.W.8 in this case to fortify his argument that, the death of the deceased is only due to suicide.

¶15

Learned Additional Standing Counsel for the State has argued that the question of involvement of the accused persons in the alleged occurrence can only be ascertained in

¶16

Page 1 of 1

¶17

course of the trial, which is presently going on.

¶18

Having regard to the submissions as above and the fact that a reading of the Charge Sheet and other materials on record, shows that a prima facie case exists against the petitioners, this Court finds no infirmity or irregularity committed by the learned trial Court in framing charge against the accused persons for the alleged offences.

¶19

In view of the above, I am not inclined to entertain this CRLMC, and accordingly the same is dismissed.

¶20

It is, however, made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion with regard to the merits of the case and therefore, the trial Court shall proceed with the case without being influenced by any observation made in this

¶21

order. ( Sashikanta Mishra) Judge

¶22

A.K. Dhal

¶23

Page 2 of 2

Saroj Kumar Ojha@Saroj Ojha v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Saroj Kumar Ojha@Saroj Ojha 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Trinatha Mohapatra Vs State of Odisha

Tarun Nayak Vs State of Odisha

Raj Kishore Patra Vs State of Odisha

Abhaya Kumar Mallick Vs State of Odisha

Rakesh Kumar Panda Vs State of Odisha

Akash @ Kalia @ Kalandi Charan Mallik Vs State of Odisha