Back
ORISSA HIGH COURT
S. Talapatra and Savitri Ratho, JJ.
D. Anita Majhi @ Mila and Ors. – Petitioners
versus
State of Odisha and Ors. – Opp. Parties
WPCRL No.93 of 2022
Decided on 9.2.2023
Counsel for the Parties:
For the Petitioner:Mr. P.K. Jena, Advocate
For the Opp. Parties:Mr. J. Katikia, Addl. Government Advocate
IMPORTANT POINT
No one can be kept languishing in custody for indefinite period in anticipation of completion of trial.
Headnote:
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 482 – Quashing petition – Case registered under UAPA, IPC and Arms Act, 1959 – Petitioners are languishing in custody for about 8 years – Petitioners are poor tribal ladies – They cannot be pushed to further litigation by merely accepting technical objection raised by Additional Government Advocate – For non-availability of security escort, Petitioners could not be produced in court on date fixed by court for production – Seven cases where after completion of investigation, charge-sheets have not been filed against Petitioners, Petitioners are deemed to have been discharged from criminal liability – Trial of pending cases shall be completed by 30.08.2023, else, Petitioners shall be released on bail on appropriate terms and conditions. (Paras 8, 13 and 24)
Result: Petitions disposed of with directions.
JUDGMENT
S. Talapatra, J.—We have heard Mr. P.K. Jena, learned counsel appearing for the Petitioners as well as Mr. J. Katikia, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the State-Opposite Parties.
2. By means of this petition, the Petitioners have urged this court to quash the cases catalogued under Annexure-1, AFR which are pending against the Petitioners either in the investigation stage or where the trial has been held up. A catalogue of those cases where the trial has commenced, but not concluded have been provided by the Petitioners including their status on the day of filing of the writ petition.
3. Mr. Jena, learned counsel appearing for the Petitioners in his submission has drawn our attention to similar other cases where the Petitioners have already been acquitted. He has further added that Petitioners are being hunted by the State for their social activities, non-violent and peaceful in nature. But the State has, without any foundation, considered their activities as hostile to the State and deliberately branded their activities as “extremist” which are absolutely unfounded and unsustainable. On similar allegations, several other cases were filed against the Petitioners and they have been acquitted in those cases after trial, as would be evident from the table below.
Cases in which Petitioners were Acquitted
| Sl. No. | P.S. Case No. & Date | G.R. Case No. | Trial Court & ST Case No. | Acquitted on |
| 1. | Adava P.S. No. | 73/2010(C) | Sessions Judge, Gajapati Paralakhemundi (81/2014) | 04.07.2016 |
| 2. | Adava P.S. No.26 Dt.12/13.05.2010 | 113/2010(D) | Sessions Judge, Gajapati Paralakhemundi (83/2014) | 18.11.2016 |
| 3. | Mohana P.S. No.24 Dt.11.03.2013 | 40/2013 | Sessions Judge, Gajapati Paralakhemundi (75/2014) | 15.03.2018 |
| 4. | Mohana P.S. No.19 Dated 28.02.2014 | 22/2014 | Sessions Judge, Gajapati Paralakhemundi (84/2014) | 16.07.2018 |
| 5. | Mohana P.S. No.21 Dtd.08.03.2013 | 38/2013 | Sessions Judge, Gajapati Paralakhemundi (79/2014) | 04.07.2017 |
| 6. | Adava P.S No. 14 Dated 24.03.2010 | 16/2010 (D) | Sessions Judge, Gajapati Paralakhemundi (78/2014) | 23.06.2017 |
| 7. | Adava P.S No. 23 Dated 01.05.2010 | 105/2010(B) | Sessions Judge, Gajapati Paralakhemundi (82/2014) | 15.03.2017 |
| 8 | Adava P.S No. 58 Dated 23.10.2010 | 221/2010(B) | Sessions Judge, Gajapati Paralakhemundi (80/2014) | 17.02.2017 |
| 9 | Adava P.S No. 17 Dated 20.10.2011 | 135/2011 | Sessions Judge, Gajapati Paralakhemundi (77/2014)(T) | 01.07.2015 |
| 10 | Mohana P.S No. 84 Dated 21 .12.2010 | 250/2010(A) | Sessions Judge, Gajapati Paralakhemundi (76/2014) | 22.08.2017 |
It may be noted that the above catalogue of cases in which the Petitioners have been acquitted was prepared on the date of filing of the writ petition i.e. on 22.07.2022. The status of these cases has been updated by the affidavits filed by the parties. The updated status would be discussed later.
4. Mr. Jena, learned counsel appearing for the Petitioners has empathetically stated that the grievances of the Petitioners in nutshell are that (i) there is inordinate delay in completion of investigation and filing the police report (ii) in some cases, though the charge-sheet has been filed there is inordinate delay in taking cognizance of the offence for not submitting the sanction from the designated authority and the courts have been waiting for a long time which is not expected of the courts, (iii) in some cases, the Petitioners were not even produced before the Magistrates at regular intervals as required by the law (iv) in some cases, trial in respect of the accused commenced but the Petitioners were not produced to face the trial along with the other co-accused, (iv) in some cases, trial has begun but the cases are repeatedly adjourned for non-attendance of the prosecution witnesses and (v) the Petitioners were not informed about so
