Disposed¶36

Sangram Keshari Behera v. State of Odisha

Orissa HC3 Jul 2025CRLMC/2548/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Section 482 CrPC quashing petition; cognizance order 12.04.2023; protest petition treated as complaint; Section 202 CrPC enquiry; Section 204 CrPC process; Sections 302/120-B IPC; Section 304A IPC; Section 173 CrPC final report; clean chit; Crime Branch Odisha Police; unnatural death by burning; forest official; Divisional Forest Officer Paralakhemundi Gajapati; discharge application liberty; nascent stage of cognizance; CRLMC No.2548 of 2023; CRLMC No.2565 of 2023; High Court of Orissa at Cuttack; Sibo Sankar Mishra, J.; S.D.J.M. Paralakhemundi.

What did the court decide?

No substantive relief; petition disposed of in terms of the judgment dated 03.07.2025 in CRLMC No.2565 of 2023 (interference declined at the nascent stage of cognizance), with liberty reserved to file a discharge application before the Trial Court. ¶36

Sangram Keshari Behera Vs State of Odisha — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Orissa HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶36

Issue for consideration

Whether the order dated 12.04.2023 of the learned S.D.J.M., Paralakhemundi taking cognizance of offences under Sections 302/120-B IPC in 1.C.C. Case No.22 of 2022 ought to be quashed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. +1 more

¶13

Court's answer

By a detailed judgment of even date in CRLMC No.2565 of 2023 (the co-accused's challenge to the same cognizance order), this Court declined to interfere in the matter at the nascent stage of taking cognizance.

¶31

Ratio / Principle

The present petition (CRLMC No.2548 of 2023) is disposed of in terms of the judgment dated 03.07.2025 in CRLMC No.2565 of 2023, which forms part of this order.

¶32

Key takeaways

The order does not preclude the petitioner from availing other remedies, including an application for discharge before the appropriate Trial Court; if preferred, the Trial Court shall consider it on its own merit, uninfluenced by any observations, taking into account the charge-sheet, the protest petition allegations, the pre-summoning evidence led by the informant, and the case diary.ratio¶35

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

CRLMC No.2548 of 2023 (S.S. Mishra, J., decision dated 03.07.2025) — Petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the cognizance order dated 12.04.2023 (Sections 302/120-B IPC) passed by the S.D.J.M., Paralakhemundi in 1.C.C. Case No.22 of 2022, arising from the death by burning of a forest official at his official residence. Crime Branch investigation had charge-sheeted the deceased's wife alone under Section 304A IPC and given a clean chit to the petitioner (Divisional Forest Officer, Paralakhemundi, Gajapati) and the servant in the Section 173 Cr.P.C. report; the father of the deceased (informant) filed a protest petition alleging a tainted investigation, which was enquired into under Section 202 Cr.P.C., leading to cognizance and process under Section 204 Cr.P.C. HELD: The petition is disposed of in terms of the detailed judgment of even date in CRLMC No.2565 of 2023 (co-accused's petition), the Court having declined interference at the nascent stage of cognizance; the petitioner remains free to seek discharge before the Trial Court, which shall decide on merits, uninfluenced by observations, considering the charge-sheet, protest petition, pre-summoning evidence and case diary.

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

¶2

CRLMC No.2548 of 2023

¶3

Sangram Keshari Behera …. Petitioner

¶4

Mr. Soura Chandra Mohapatra, Senior Advocate

¶5

-versus-

¶6

State of Odisha & another …. Opp. Parties

¶7

Mr. U.R. Jena, AGA Mr. Partha Sarathi Nayak, Advocate for Opposite Party No.2

¶8

CORAM:

¶9

JUSTICE SIBO SANKAR MISHRA

Order No.

14.

ORDER 03.07.2025

1. The petitioner has invoked the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C seeking quashing of the order dated 12.04.2023 taking cognizance of offence U/s.302/120-B of I.P.C. by learned S.D.J.M, Paralakhemundi in 1.C.C. Case No.22 of 2022.

¶14

2. This matter is arising out of unnatural death (by burning) of a forest official while he was at his official residence. The present petitioner, who happens to be a senior officer serving as Divisional Forest Officer in the Forest Department at Paralakhemundi, Gajapati along with the wife of the deceased and the servant of the deceased were alleged to have conspired for the crime and have done the act in pursuance of a common intention.

¶15

3. The case was investigated by the Crime Branch of the

¶16

Page 1 of 4

¶17

Odisha Police, following which the wife of the deceased was only charge-sheeted for offence u/s.304A and the coaccused (the present petitioner and the servant) were given clean-chit by the investigating agency in the report under section 173 Cr.P.C.

¶18

4. Dissatisfied with such investigation, the father of the deceased, who is also the informant in this case have filed a protest petition in form of 1.C.C. No.22 of 2022 in the court of S.D.J.M. Paralakhemundi, mainly on the following grounds:

¶19

a) The informant consistently alleged in FIR, 161 CrPC statement, protest petition and initial statement under Section 200 CrPC about the deceased's complaints regarding illicit relationship between his wife (Bidya Bharati Panda) and Sangram Keshari Behera, and threats when confronted.

¶20

b) The deceased received 95% burn injuries but the spot had no burnt materials except some burnt scrap papers. A bottle containing 200 ml kerosene with cap closed was found at the spot, however, body of the deceased was completely burned.

¶21

c) The charge sheet established animosity between deceased and his wife, which could be the motive of the alleged crime.

¶22

d) Witness statements recorded under Section 202 CrPC point towards petitioners' involvement.

¶23

e) Discrepancies in statements of Bidyabharati Panda recorded by Police at different stages regarding how deceased caught fire.

¶24

f) Since crime occurred at deceased's residence, onus is

¶25

Page 2 of 4

¶26

on accused wife to explain how husband caught fire with no third person present.

¶27

g) Post incidental conduct of accused wife in not arranging hospital treatment and not accompanying injured husband raises suspicion.

¶28

The informant’s protest petition mainly alleged that the above noted points were not taken into consideration during the process of investigation as such the report u/s 173 Cr.P.C. is tainted.

¶29

5. In furtherance, the protest petition being taken as a complaint petition was enquired into u/s.202 Cr.P.C. and the learned Magistrate took cognizance of the alleged offences u/s 302 and 120-B IPC and issued process u/s.204 Cr.P.C.

¶30

6. The present petitioner aggrieved by the same has approached this court assailing the cognizance order dated.12.04.2023 taken for offence u/s.302 and 120-B IPC by the Magistrate. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the cognizance is taken mechanically and there exist no legal ground to take such cognizance, highlighting several procedural lacunas and defects.

¶31

7. This Court has already dealt with the challenge to the same order by the co-accused and delved upon all the grounds and issues raised by the parties in the judgment dated 03.07.2025 in CRLMC No.2565 of 2023 . Vide a detailed judgment passed today in CRLMC No.2565 of 2023 , this Court declined to interfere in the matter at this nascent stage of taking cognizance.

¶32

The present petition is also disposed of in terms of the judgement dated 03.07.2025 in CRLMC No.2565 of 2023,

¶33

Page 3 of 4

¶34

which shall form part of this order.

¶35

8. This order shall not preclude the petitioner from availing any other remedy available under law, including filing of the application for discharge before the appropriate Trial Court. The petitioner shall be at liberty to move such application, and if preferred, the Trial Court shall consider the same on its own merit, uninfluenced by any observations contained in the judgment. While adjudicating such application, the Trial Court shall take into account all relevant materials, including the charge-sheet, the allegations made in the protest petition, the presummoning evidence led by the informant, and the case diary as well.

¶36

9. With the aforementioned observation, this CRLMC is disposed of.

(S.S. Mishra)

Judge

Swarna

Signature Not Verified

¶41

Digitally Signed Signed by: SWARNAPRAVA DASH Designation: Senior Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa Date: 09-Jul-2025 10:31:26

¶42

Page 4 of 4

Sangram Keshari Behera v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sangram Keshari Behera v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Nandalal Bhoi Vs State

Rajib Vs State

Isaka Majhi Vs State of Odisha

Hrusikesh Vs State

Rankanidhi Vs State

Mayadhar Vs State