A cognizance order may be quashed if there is a total absence of evidence against a petitioner, particularly when no sanction under Section 197 of the Cr.P.C. has been obtained.

JUDGMENT :

R.K. PATTANAIK, J.

1. Instant application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is filed by the petitioner challenging the legality of the impugned order of cognizance dated 6^th September, 2010 (Annexure-2) passed in G.R. Case No.495 of 2010 by the learned S.D.J.M. Bargarh on the grounds inter alia that there is no evidence on record to sustain any charge against him that apart no sanction was obtained in term of Section 197 of Cr.P.C. besides the fact that there is no material to even remotely suggest any kind of his involvement vis-a-vis the alleged incident.

2. In fact, a plain paper F.I.R. was drawn by the IIC, Town P.S. Bargarh on receiving reliable information regarding disposal of a stolen Travera vehicle and in that connection, P.S. Case No. 175 (4) dated 5^th July, 2010 was registered under Section(s) 379,411 & 414 read with 34 IPC which corresponds to G.R.Case No.495 of 2010. Thereafter, investigation was held and finally, charge sheet was submitted against the principal accused and others including the petitioner for having assisted in the disposal of said vehicle bearing registration No. OR-26-A 0726 consequent upon which the learned court below took cognizance of the alleged offences against all under Annexure-2.

3. Heard Mr. B.B.Swain, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. P.K.Mohanty, learned ASC appearing for the State.

4. It is contended by Mr. Swain that the evidence on record does not in any way show and establish the involvement of the petitioner, who was in-charge of the RTO office at the relevant point of time. It is further contended that none of the offences for which the learned court below has taken cognizance of can be directed against the petitioner as he was neither involved in the theft of the vehicle nor to be responsible in assisting its disposal with the knowledge that it to be stolen property. Apart from above, according to Mr. Swain the learned court below could not have taken cognizance of the offences vis-à-vis the petitioner in absence of any sanction obtained as is required under Section 197 Cr.P.C. Furthermore, it is urged that even accepting the evidence on record at its face value, it would not suggest or prove involvement of the petitioner in the commission of the alleged crime and therefore, the impugned order under Annexure-2 deserves to be quashed as against him.

5. Mr. Mohanty, on the other hand, contends that evidence collected during investigation prima facie established the involvement of the petitioner who at that point of time was an official of the RTO office and as was alleged to be responsible for ensuring disposal of the stolen vehicle and therefore, the learned court below did not commit any error and rightly passed the impugned order of cognizance vide Annexure-2 which therefore, calls for no interference.

6. The Court perused the charge sheet and other material evidence including the case diary which has been made available by Mr. Mohanty, learned ASC.

7. Admittedly, IIC, Town P.S. Bargarh on receiving information about the vehicle in question drew a plain paper F.I.R. and thereafter, on registration of the case directed an S.I. of Police to conduct the investigation. In course of investigation, the I.O. recorded the statement of the witnesses under Section 161 Cr.P.C. It is also made to appear that some incriminating materials were seized by the I.O. from the office of the RTO, Bargarh. There is no denial to the fact that in course of investigation, the I.O. confirmed about the theft of the alleged vehicle and its use by the principal accused bearing a temporary registration No. CG 07 TR 9237 which was subsequently registered as OR 26 A