The court emphasized the importance of considering the grounds for presuming the accused's involvement in the offense at the time of framing the charge and highlighted the need for the trial court to consider the contentions regarding the conduct of the investigating agency and the acceptability of the confession.

JUDGMENT :

P.K. Tripathy, J. - At present, Petitioner is one of the accused persons in G.R. Case No. 91 of 1985 of the Court of S.D.J.M., Dhenkanal. As per the prosecution, the case is booked for the offence u/s 457/380/411, I.P.C. Opp. Party No. 2 Binoy Nayak is the co-accused of the Petitioner. In this application u/s 482, Code of Criminal Procedure, Petitioner has prayed to quash the order of cognizance passed on 4.2.1992 and the subsequent of issue of process passed on 8.2.1999.

2. This case, has come up before this Court for more than once so also before the Court of Sessions Judge, Dhenkanal on different occasions and all such litigations centre round on the factum of investigation, submission of final from, cognizance and issue of process. In the judgment delivered by this Court on 1.5.1998 in Criminal Misc. Case No. 2363 of 1992, and Criminal Misc. Case No. 341 of 1993, details of the facts and circumstances have been noted including the development of the proceeding from time to time and stage to stage. For the purpose of considering the question of issue of process, learned S.D.J.M. has also taken note of such fact situation in his order passed on 8.2.1999 and 6.3.1999 while considering the application of the Petitioner to recall the order of cognizance or else to recall the process issued against him in view of order passed by him on 3.8.1992. Therefore, repetitions of facts and circumstances is not necessary to deal with and dispose of the present application u/s 482, Code of Criminal Procedure

3. Contention of the Petitioner is two fold. His First contention is that when the order of cognizance passed on 4.2.1992 was recalled by learned S.D.J.M. on 3.8.1992 on the basis of the decision of learned Sessions Judge, Dhenkanal passed on 15.4.1992 in Criminal Revision No. 1 07 of 1986, therefore, he could not have issued process as per the order passed by him on 26.10.1998. His second contention is that the fact scenario available on record indicates that F.I.R. was lodged without naming the culprit for the allegation of theft of ornaments and cash. That resulted in submission of final report. Subsequently, on the effort of the informant order was passed for the-investigation and on the basis of that reinvestigation servant of the informant I.e. Opp. Party No. 2 was involved as an accused for committing the theft and through that Binoy (opposite party No. 2) a confession was brought on record to implicate the Petitioner as the instigator and abator of the said offence. Petitioner further argues that it is the undisputed fact that Petitioner is not only the elder brother of the informant but also there is land dispute and enmity between the parties. Petitioner also stated that he works as a Class-I Gazetted Officer and involving him and his wife in the class is only with a view to humiliate them. He further argues that when there is no evidence worth the name to find his involvement with the alleged offence, therefore, issue of process against him is illegal.

4. Learned Standing Counsel on the other hand argued that keeping in view the different facts as noted in the different orders passed by this Court and the learned Sessions Judge, so also keeping in view the order which learned S.D.J.M. has passed, on 6.3.1999, the present step taken by the Petitioner is pre-matured in as much as at the stage of consideration of charge, as stated by the S.D.J.M. such question shall be considered. He further argued that when the remedy is available to the Petitioner and he has already appeared and gone on bail from the Court below, therefore, at this stage, it is premature to exercise the inherent power.

5. On consideration of the aforesaid rival contention, this Court finds that order which learned S.D.J.M. passed on 3.8.1992 was to close the case on the basis of the order passed by learned Sessions Judge in the above noted criminal revision. Therefore, when that criminal revision was later on re-heard and disposed of without finding any