The court stressed the significance of completing investigations without delay, the duty of the trial court to scrutinize police papers before taking cognizance, and the necessity for the Investigating Officer to comply with statutory requirements and complete investigations before submitting charge-sheets.

JUDGMENT

I. Mahanty, J. The petitioners, namely, Khageswar Sunani and his wife Smt. Subasini Sunani (parents of one Lingaraj Sunani) have filed the petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. with a prayer to quash the order dated 08.09.2010 passed by the learned S.D.J.M., Talcher in G.R. Case No.527 of 2007 arising out of Colliery P.S. Case No.152 of 2007 taking cognizance of the offences under Sections 498-A/304/34 I.P.C. and issue of process against them along with other accused persons.

2. Shorn of unnecessary detail the relevant facts of the present case is that one Suresh Chandra Pradhan (informant) lodged a written report on 22.7.2007 claiming therein that his daughter Sujata had died an unnatural death, on the basis of which Collieary P.S. Case No. 152 of 2007 was registered against the petitioners and others initially under Sections 364-A/302/34 I.P.C. The body of the deceased-Sujata was lying in the hospital and hence, the same was sent for postmortem.

The doctor who conducted post-mortem on 23.7.2007 reserved his opinion as to the cause of death till receipt of the chemical examination report of the viscera which had been sent to the State Forensic Science Laboratory, Bhubaneswar.

It appears in the present case that the Investigating Officer examined various witnesses but without awaiting/collecting the viscera report and the opinion of the doctor who conducted postmortem regarding the possible cause of death of deceased-Sujata, submitted Charge-sheet bearing No.166 on 10.8.2010 against the petitioners and others under Sections 498-A/306/34 I.P.C.

3. In the light of the circumstances noted hereinabove, the petitioners sought to assail the order of cognizance passed by the learned S.D.J.M., Talcher and issue of process before this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. In course of the present proceeding, this Court by order dated 14.3.2011 directed the learned counsel for the State to obtain copy of the case diary as well as the viscera report. Pursuant to the aforesaid direction, the chemical examination report of the viscera from Forensic Laboratory, Bhubaneswar dated 23.3.2011 was produced by the learned Government Advocate and by Order dated 11.4.2011, further directions were issued to the Investigating Officer to produce such report before the Doctor who had conducted the postmortem of the deceased-Sujata and seek his opinion as to the possible cause of death of the deceased-Sujata. Dr. Nilamani of the Sub-Divisional Hospital, Talcher gave his report dated 15.4.2011 stating therein that, the cause of death of the deceased-Sujata was due to Acute Myocardial Infarction (Heart Attack).

4. Mr. J.N.Panda, learned counsel for the petitioner on the basis of the facts as noted hereinabove submitted that in view of the categorical opinion of the doctor relating to the cause of death of the deceased-Sujata, the order of cognizance for the offence under Section 306 I.P.C. was not sustainable and was liable to be quashed. He further submitted that as regards cognizance for the offence under Section 498-A I.P.C. is concerned, the deceased-Sujata had eloped with the son of the petitioners, namely, Lingaraj Sunani out of love, more than four years prior to her death. She had been admitted in the Talcher hospital due to her heart ailment for her treatment. Therefore, there could be no foundation or basis for allegation of the offence under Section 498-A I.P.C. He vehemently urged that the present case is an illustration of the mechanical manner in which the Investigating Officers have submitted charge-sheet, even admittedly without awaiting the conclusion of the investigations. It is further urged that the present case also illustrates the manner in which the court taking cognizance had also acted mechanical by accepting the Charge-sheet submitted by the Investigating Officer, without even apparently verifying the police papers, as to the status of the investigation. It is submitted that had the trial court taking cognizance even bothered to l