Vidya Chandra Vir Pradhan Vs State of Odisha

By filing the present application under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C., the Petitioner seeks to invoke the inherent jurisdiction of this Court for quashing of criminal proceeding in Special (NDPS) Case No.146 of 2023 which arises out of Manamunda P.S. Case No.133 of 2023 which was registered for commission of offence punishable under Section 20(b)(ii)(c)/29 of the NDPS Act read with Section 420/468 of the I.P.C. and at the moment pending before the learned Additional Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge, Kantamal, Boudh.

¶15

Page 1 of 4.

¶16

Learned counsel for the Petitioner at the outset contended that although initially the Petitioner was named in the F.I.R., however, no charge sheet has been filed against the present Petitioner. He further contended that the Petitioner has been shown as a witness in the charge sheet. He further contended that so far the present Petitioner is concerned, the allegation against him is that he happens to be the registered owner of the vehicle i.e. Innova Crysta which was involved in the alleged crime.

¶17

Learned counsel for the Petitioner in course of his argument, referred to the order dated 14.08.2024 passed in Criminal Misc. Case No.12 of 2024 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kantamal, while considering the application filed by the Petitioner under Section 457 of the Cr.P.C. In order dated 14.08.2024, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kantamal has clearly mentioned that the present Petitioner is not the accused in this case. Thus, it clearly reveals that the Petitioner has not been shown as an accused in the charge sheet and he is not being tried in the present case as an accused.

¶18

Learned counsel for the Petitioner at this juncture contended that the Petitioner apprehends his arrest as it is stated that the investigation has been kept open. He further contended that in the meantime some of the co-accused persons, who have faced in trial in Special (NDPS) Case No.146 of 2023, have been acquitted by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge, Kantamal vide judgment dated 21.03.2025. On a perusal of the aforesaid judgment, it appears that in para-17 of the judgment, the learned trial court has clearly observed that the accused, namely, Harish Kumar Jaitwar was not found guilty of the offence under

¶19

Page 2 of 4.

¶20

Section 20(b)(ii)(C)/29 of the NDPS Act read with Section 468 of the I.P.C. and he has been acquitted under Section 235(1) of the Cr.P.C. In such view of the matter, learned counsel for the Petitioner contended that the criminal proceeding in respect of the Petitioner be quashed in exercise of the inherent power conferred on this Court under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C.

¶21

Learned counsel for the State on the other hand contended that the Petitioner has not been shown as an accused in the charge sheet. He also referred to the order passed by the learned trial court while considering the application of the Petitioner under Section 457 of the Cr.P.C. and referred to the observation made therein that the Petitioner is not an accused in this case. In such view of the matter, learned counsel for the State contended that the present application under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. to quash the criminal proceeding is absolutely misconceived. Accordingly, it was submitted that the present application is devoid of merit and is liable to be quashed.

¶22

Having heard the learned counsels appearing from both sides, on a careful examination of the background facts as well as the documents attached to the application, this Court observes that the Petitioner has not been shown as an accused in the charge sheet, although the vehicle which was involved in the crime was registered in the name of the present Petitioner. Moreover, the observation of the learned trial court while disposing of the application of the Petitioner under Section 457 of the Cr.P.C. is very clear that the Petitioner is not an accused in the present case. In such view of the matter, this Court holds that the present application at the instance of the Petitioner is not maintainable.

¶23

Page 3 of 4.

¶24

Moreover, on perusal of order dated 14.08.2024 passed in Criminal Misc. Case No.12 of 2024, it appears that the learned trial court while dealing with the application of the Petitioner under Section 457 of the Cr.P.C., has been pleased to order release of the vehicle in favour of the Petitioner subject to certain terms and conditions as mentioned in the ordering portion. In such view of the matter, it is open to the Petitioner to take necessary steps in the court below for release of such vehicle in terms of the order dated 14.08.2024.

¶25

Accordingly, the CRLMC is disposed of.

¶26

Issue urgent certified copy of this order as per Rules.

¶27

( Aditya Kumar Mohapatra) Judge

¶28

Anil

¶29

Signature Not Verified Page 4 of 4.

¶30

Digitally Signed Signed by: ANIL KUMAR SAHOO Designation: Junior Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa Date: 23-Jul-2025 11:38:59

Vidya Chandra Vir Pradhan v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vidya Chandra Vir Pradhan v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Jeevanjyoti Mohanty Vs State of Odisha

Suryashikha Khuntia Vs State of Odisha

Sashadhar Sethi Vs State of Odisha

Pradeep Kumar Rath Vs State of Odisha

Susanta Behera Vs State of Odisha

Rita Priyadarsini Mohanaty Vs State of Odisha