Allowed

Ananda Chandra Behera v. State of Odisha

Orissa HC10 Apr 2024CRLMC/866/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Complainant challenged a Magistrate's refusal to let him close his preliminary evidence in a protest-petition inquiry after examining seven of fifteen witnesses. The High Court held it was the complainant's call how many witnesses to examine, set aside the order and allowed him to close evidence.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order dated 22.07.2023 set aside; petitioner permitted to close evidence under Section 202 Cr.P.C.; trial court directed to proceed in accordance with law.

Ananda Chandra Behera Vs State of Odisha — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Orissa HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

¶2

CRLMC No.866 of 2024

¶3

Ananda Chandra Behera …. Petitioner

¶4

Mr. S.K. Tripathy, Advocate

¶5

-versus-

¶6

State of Odisha & others

¶7

…. Opp. Parties

¶8

Mr. B.K. Ragada, Additional Government Advocate

¶9

CORAM:

¶10

JUSTICE SIBO SANKAR MISHRA

Order

No.

ORDER

10.04.2024

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

¶17

2 . The petitioner is the complaint/informant. He is aggrieved by the order dated 22.07.2023 passed by the learned J.M.F.C., Baramba in I.C.C. Case No.21 of 2022 whereby the memo moved by the petitioner for closing the further inquiry under Section 202 of Cr.P.C. has been turned down.

¶18

3 . In the instant case, after completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed against the accused persons, i.e., private opposite parties in the present case under Sections 341/294/323/325/354A/354-B/506/34 of the IPC. The petitioner was

¶19

aggrieved by the charge sheet since the offence under Section 307 of the IPC was not included. Therefore, he resorted to the complaint proceeding under Section 202 of Cr.P.C. by way of filing a protest petition. In the protest petition, the petitioner had named as many as fifteen witnesses to be examined by him. After examination of seven witnesses, the petitioner found it proper to close the evidence under Section 202 of Cr.P.C. Accordingly, he filed a memo on 04.07.2023 seeking to close his preliminary evidence.

¶20

4 . The Court below vide impugned order dated 22.07.2023 has rejected the said memo and asked the petitioner to examine all the fifteen witnesses he has cited in the protest petition. Therefore, he is aggrieved by the said order and has filed the present petition.

¶21

5 . The provision under Section 202 of Cr.P.C. reads as under:

¶22

“ 202. Postponement of issue of process.

¶23

(1)Any Magistrate, on receipt of a complaint of

¶24

an offence of which he is authorised to take cognizance or which has been made over to him under section 192 may, if he thinks fit, [and shall, in a case where the accused is residing at a place beyond the area in which he exercises his jurisdiction postpone the issue of process against the accused, and either inquire into the case himself or direct an investigation to be made by a police officer or by such other person as he thinks fit, for the

¶25

¶26

purpose of deciding whether or not there is sufficient ground for proceeding

¶27

Provided that no such direction for investigation shall be made, -

¶28

(a)where it appears to the Magistrate that the offence complained of is triable exclusively by the Court of Session; or

¶29

(b)where the complaint has not been made by a Court, unless the complainant and the witnesses present (if any) have been examined on oath under section 200.

¶30

(2) In an inquiry under sub-section (1), the Magistrate may, if he thinks fit, take evidence of witnesses on oath :

¶31

Provided that if it appears to the Magistrate that the offence complained of is triable exclusively by the Court of Session, he shall call upon the complainant to produce all his witnesses and examine them on oath.

¶32

(3) If an investigation under sub-section (1) is made by a person not being a police officer, he shall have for that investigation all the powers conferred by this Court on an officer-in-charge of a police station except the power to arrest without warrant”.

¶33

6. Taking into consideration the provision under Section 202 of Cr.P.C., the trial Court ought to have allowed the memo and closed the evidence of the petitioner. It is mandatory under law when the petitioner needs to examine himself and all his witnesses to bring home the charges. The complainant is satisfied that seven witnesses, who are already

¶34

¶35

examined, is enough for the purpose of bring the charge under Section 307 of the IPC against the accused persons.Its absolutely his call to decide as to whether further deposition of witness are required or not. Therefore, the impugned order is not sustainable under law.

¶36

7. Accordingly, the order dated 22.07.2023 passed by the Court below is set aside and the petitioner is allowed to close the evidence under Section 202 of Cr.P.C. The trial Court is directed to proceed in accordance with law.

¶37

8. The CRLMC is accordingly allowed.

¶38

(S.S. Mishra) Judge

¶39

amit

¶40

Signature Not Verified

¶41

Digitally Signed Signed by: AMIT KUMAR MOHANTY Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CU TTACK Date: 01-May-2024 15:31:37

¶42

Ananda Chandra Behera v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ananda Chandra Behera 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

Sankar Pradhan Vs State of Odisha

Narasimhamurty Panigrahi Vs Saroj Kumar Panda

Kuna@Sri Rama Krushna Jena Vs State of Odisha

Aruna Panda@Aruna Kumar Panda Vs State of Odisha

Jagannath Sahoo Vs State of Odisha

Bhagabat Murmu Vs State of Odisha