Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
Savitri Ratho, J, SAVITRI RATHO
Deepak Oram – Appellant
Versus
State of Orissa – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. application for quashing of charges. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4) |
| 2. overview of prosecution case and allegations. (Para 11 , 12) |
| 3. arguments from petitioner and state. (Para 14 , 15) |
| 4. court's observation regarding inherent powers. (Para 17 , 18 , 19) |
| 5. determination on the petitioner's application. (Para 23 , 24) |
JUDGMENT :
I have heard Mr. L.N. Patel, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. J. Katikia, learned Addl. Govt. Advocate for the State.
On 11.01.2017, M.C. No. 129 of 2017 for amendment was filed in Court for amendment of the prayer portion. It was allowed on the same day.The consolidated petition was filed in court on the same day.
3. In the consolidated application filed on 07.03.2017 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, prayer has been made for “ quashing the entire proceeding pending in the Court of the learned S.D.J.M., Sambalpur in C.T. Case No. 2058(A) of 2004 arising out of Jujumara P.S. Case No. 57 of 2004”.
4. After 07.03.2017, the matter was listed after more than five years on 17.10.2022. It was adjourned on that day on the prayer of the learned counsel for the petitioner. It was again adjourned on 28.10.2022 and on 22.11.2022. On 8.12.2022, this Court
The acquittal of co-accused does not automatically warrant quashing of charges against an absconding accused; trials may proceed if evidence against absconders remains.
The court affirmed that the inherent powers under Section 482 of the CrPC should be exercised sparingly, emphasizing that acquittal of a co-accused does not automatically warrant quashing proceedings....
Proceedings may be quashed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. when prosecution witnesses turn hostile and there’s insufficient evidence, indicating a lack of prospect for conviction.
The acquittal of a co-accused does not automatically entitle other accused to quash proceedings; each case must be evaluated on its own merits.
Point of law: Quash of criminal proceedings – Dismissed - Judgment of acquittal is not admissible under Sections 40 to 43 of the Evidence Act and the benefit cannot be extended.
The acquittal of co-accused necessitates the quashing of charges against similarly situated accused, reinforcing the doctrine of parity in criminal proceedings.
Confessions of co-accused alone are insufficient for conviction; substantive evidence is necessary for criminal charges to proceed.
A second application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is maintainable if based on changed circumstances, despite a previous application being withdrawn.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
