This is an application under Section 482 CrPC to quash an order of cognizance. The High Court held that in the absence of a chemical analysis report proving the oil was adulterated, the trial court could not proceed against petitioners. The impugned order is quashed.
Impugned order of cognizance and issuance of process against the Petitioners quashed.
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.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
CRLMC No.3383 of 2013
Dibakar Panigrahi & another
…. Petitioners
-versus-
State of Odisha
…. Opposite Party
CORAM: JUSTICE S.PUJAHARI
ORDER
13.07.2022
Order No.
Page 1 of 1
// 2 //
food articles on 31.07.2010 sold by the present Petitioner and his son Sudhakar Panigrahi, they suspected that the oil was poisonous one. On receipt of such report, Puttasingh P.S. Case No.15 of 2010 was registered under Sections 272/34 IPC. Investigation was conducted and on completion of the investigation, final report was submitted on the ground that the case was non-cognizable one. On receipt of the same, learned Magistrate on a wrong premises issued notice to the Informant to have his response. The Police, however, on realizing the mistake that the offence committed was cognizable one, filed an application to investigate into the matter further. The learned S.D.J.M. while rejecting that petition made an observation that the Investigating Agency has statutory power to further investigate the case, even after submission of final form under Section 173(8) of Cr.P.C., if any further evidence comes to the knowledge of the Investigating Agency. After re-opening the investigation, police filed charge-sheet, pursuant to which, cognizance under Section 272/34 IPC has been taken and summons have been issued to the Petitioners. The Petitioners have come to this Court challenging the same on the ground that without any permission from the court under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C. the Police could not have filed another charge sheet basing on the self-same materials available on record and the court on the same could not have proceeded against the Petitioners.
Page 2 of 5
// 3 //
Petitioners inasmuch as the ingredients of the offence under Section 272/34 IPC are squarely lacking in this case.
Page 3 of 5
// 4 //
the accused persons therein. Here, the Investigating Officer being oblivious of the above provision sought for the permission from the Court which was not required, though in many decisions, it has been held that such permission is sought for judicial propriety, and not as a mandatory requirement, and submitted charge sheet rectifying his error. The same appears to have caused no prejudice to the Petitioners. Hence, challenge to the order on the ground stated that in the absence of fresh materials charge sheet could not have been filed in exercise of the power under Section 173 (8) Cr.P.C., therefore in the facts and circumstances, is found to be without any substance.
Page 4 of 5
// 5 //
PKS/MRS
Page 5 of 5
2 issues framed by the court
Whether police can re-file a charge sheet under Section 173(8) CrPC based on self-same materials without court permission.
Whether the trial court had sufficient primary material to take cognizance of an offence under Section 272/34 IPC without a chemical analysis report.
3 provisions across 2 enactments
Dibakar Panigrahi
State of Odisha
S. Pujahari
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
