Suspicion alone cannot justify taking cognizance of murder; solid evidence is required to establish a prima facie case under criminal law.

JUDGMENT :

G.SATAPATHY, J.

The Petitioner has challenged the order passed on 25.04.2014 by learned S.D.J.M., Bhadrak in protest petition in 1CC Case No.404 of 2013 taking cognizance of offence U/Ss. 302/34 of IPC as well as the issuance of process against the Petitioner and others and consequently, the complaint in an application U/S. 482 Cr.P.C.

2. The factual matrix in nutshell is that on 11.05.2011, one Bibhu Prasad Dash was found drowned in river Salandi at Bagurai Ghat near Januganj railway bridge and accordingly, Bhadrak Rural P.S U.D. Case No. 26 of 2011 was registered which was inquired into, but being dissatisfied, the father of deceased namely Satya Narayan Das presented a report addressing IIC Bhadrak Police Station on 15.11.11 which was registered as FIR vide Bhadrak Rural P.S. Case No. 487 of 2011 corresponding to G.R. Case No. 1848 of 2011 of the Court of S.D.J.M., Bhadrak in obedience to the order passed by this Court in W.P.(Crl) No. 1142 of 2011. In such FIR, the father of the deceased has alleged that he came to know that his son had not died out of drowning, but he suspects the five friends of deceased including the Petitioner Somya Ranjan Parida had conjointly killed his son in a pre-planned manner. It is also stated in the FIR that the Petitioner is senior to the deceased and his friends had forcibly taken money from the deceased during his life time out of his mess expenses and they were also forcing him to roam outside. It is also alleged that during 28.04.2011 to 30.04.2011, one call had been received by the younger brother in the mobile phone of the deceased and in such call, co-accused Banti had threatened by taking the nick name of deceased as Raja to not to come to Bhadrak, otherwise he would not return. However, the younger brother of the deceased did not take it seriously. On the above facts, the father of the deceased suspects that his son had been killed by the Petitioner and his four friends in a pre-planned way.

3. On receipt of the FIR, the matter was investigated into, but the I.O. submitted a final report as “mistake of fact” in G.R. Case No. 1848 of 2011, whereafter the learned Court issued notice to the informant and pursuant to such notice, the informant Satya Narayan Das filed a protest petition in 1CC Case No. 404 of 2013 in which the learned S.D.J.M., Bhadrak recorded the initial statement of the complainant and conducted inquiry U/S. 202 of Cr.P.C. by recording statement of witnesses. After going through the complaint, initial statement of the complainant and statement of other witnesses examined for the complainant in inquiry U/S. 202 of Cr.P.C. and on finding prima facie and sufficient materials, learned S.D.J.M., Bhadrak took cognizance of offence 302/34 of IPC and issued processes against the Petitioner and others. Hence, this CRLMC.

4. In assailing the impugned order, learned counsel for the Petitioner has submitted that pursuant to an order passed in W.P. (Crl.) No. 1142 of 2011 filed by OP No.2, Bhadrak Rural P.S. case No. 487 of 2011 was registered against the Petitioner and others for offence U/Ss. 302/34 of IPC , but such allegation was not found to be established in the course of investigation resulting in submission of final report as “mistake of fact” by the Investigating Police Officer and OP No. 2 being dissatisfied with such report of police has filed a protest petition in shape of complaint against the Petitioner and others in 1.C.C. Case No. 404 of 2013 in which the learned S.D.J.M., Bhadrak by the impugned order has issued process against the Petitioner. Learned counsel for the Petitioner by drawing attention of the Court to the Post Mortem Report of the deceased has submitted