Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
G.SATAPATHY
Bikram Pradhan – Appellant
Versus
State of Orissa – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. invocation of jurisdiction for quashing cognizance. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. contentions of both parties regarding allegations. (Para 3 , 4) |
| 3. analysis of prima facie evidence for u/s.436 ipc. (Para 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 10 , 11) |
| 4. judicial scrutiny of complaint and evidence. (Para 9) |
| 5. quashing of impugned order due to lack of evidence. (Para 12 , 13) |
JUDGMENT :
1. Aggrieved by the order passed on 30.11.2015 in C.T. Case No.186 of 2011 by which the learned S.D.J.M., Rairakhol took cognizance of offence U/S.436 of IPC , the petitioner has invoked the jurisdiction of this Court U/S.482 of Cr.P.C. to quash the aforesaid order taking cognizance of offence U/S. 436 of the I.P.C.
3. In the course of hearing the CRLMC, learned counsel for the petitioner by taking through the averments of FIR, complaint and the initial statement of the complainant, submits that the petitioner has never set the house of the informant on fire and the only inference against the petitioner for quizzing others by saying as to “why they were dousing the fire, when the informant has himself set his house on fire”, is forthcoming and, therefore, no offence U/S.436 of IPC is attracted against the petitioner. It
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
