Dismissed

Ajaya Sahoo v. State

Orissa HC8 Jul 2022CRLMC/5080/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court dismissed the application under Section 482 CrPC seeking quashment of an order of cognizance. It rejected the claim of false and concocted allegations regarding the belated filing of the First Information Report. However, the Court directed the petitioner to surrender for bail within six weeks if not indicted in any other graver offence.

What did the court decide?

The petitioner is directed to surrender before the court in seisin within six weeks and move for bail; the petition for quashing is dismissed.

Ajaya Sahoo Vs State — Cheque Dishonour | Orissa HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

¶2

CRLMC No.5080 of 2011

Ajaya Sahoo.

…. Petitioner

-versus-

…. State of Odisha. Opposite Party

¶7

CORAM: JUSTICE S.PUJAHARI ORDER 08.07.2022 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid mode.

¶8

Order No.

¶9

¶10

The petitioner in this application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short “Cr.P.C.”) has prayed for quashing of the order dated 07.09.2011 passed by the learned S.D.J.M., Dhenkanal in 2(a) C.C. Case No.44 of 2011 taking cognizance of the offence under Section 47(a) of the Bihar & Orissa Excise Act.

¶11

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the State.

¶12

As it appears, the petitioner seeks for quashment of the impugned order of cognizance on the ground that the case was initiated against him on the basis of false and concocted

¶13

Page 1 of 3

¶14

// 2 //

¶15

allegations, inasmuch as when he sought for release of his vehicle under Section 457 of Cr.P.C. by filing a petition on 25.03.2011 which was rejected on the ground that the same stated to have not been seized in any case, a false case was initiated against the petitioner vide P.R. No.30 of 2010-11 by the Excise Officer at a belated stage. However, as the vehicle number, for which release was sought for, the same being not tallied to have been seized in connection with any case, as contended by the learned APP, the Court below declined to release the said vehicle having not been seized. Photocopy of the P.R. registered reveals that the P.R. was drawn vide No.30/2010-11 alleging the incident on 10.09.2010 at about 7 a.m. No doubt, P.R. was not submitted to the Court while the matter was investigated nor the preliminary P.R. was filed. But, later on the P.R. has been filed against the petitioner.

¶16

From the aforesaid fact, as it appears, when the petitioner was not apprehended on the very date the seizure was made, no P.R. was immediately forwarded to the Court, but later on, after conducting investigation the P.R. having been filed, pursuant to which the case having been registered, the contention advance by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the aforesaid allegation has been made against the petitioner is false and concocted for belated filing of the P.R. appears to be misconceived and without any substance.

¶17

Page 2 of 3

¶18

// 3 //

¶19

7. Therefore, this CRLMC filed challenging the impugned order being devoid of merit stands dismissed.

¶20

However, since it is stated by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is not on bail and now he is ready and willing to appear before the Court below and move for bail, this Court directs that if the petitioner surrenders and move for bail in the aforesaid case before the Court in seisin over the matter within six weeks hence, the Court in seisin over the matter shall allow him to go on bail on such terms and conditions as deemed just and proper, provided he is not indicted in any other graver offence.

¶21

A copy of this order be communicated to the Court
below forthwith.

¶22

(S. Pujahari)
Judge
MRS

¶23

Page 3 of 3

Ajaya Sahoo v. State

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ajaya Sahoo v. State

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

Minaketan Mohanty Vs Swapnarani Baliarsingh

Soumitra Nayak Vs Debi Prasad Mohanty

Sanji@Sanjib Behera@Sanjit Kumar Behera Vs State of Odisha

Satya Ranjan Rout@Litu Vs State of Odisha

Narendra Pradhan Vs State of Odisha

Ramakanta Behera Vs Surendranath Panigrahi