Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
R.K.PATTANAIK
Sumati Nayak – Appellant
Versus
State of Odisha – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petitioner challenges court's order via section 482 cr.p.c. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. petitioner's counsel argues against required sanction. (Para 3 , 4 , 6) |
| 3. details of the alleged incident and subsequent complaint. (Para 5 , 8) |
| 4. explanation of section 197 cr.p.c. and its applicability. (Para 7 , 9) |
| 5. court's order to set aside previous ruling and proceed. (Para 10 , 11) |
JUDGMENT :
2. Heard counsel for the petitioner and learned AGA for the State. None appeared on behalf of opposite party No.2.
4. Despite service of summons, opposite party No.2 is left unrepresented. The learned AGA, however, sought to defend the impugned order under Annexure-3 while contending that since the learned court below arrived at a conclusion that the alleged incident happened at a time when opposite party No.2 was on duty, no error or wrong was committed as a result while demanding sanction which is a statutory mandate as per Section 197 Cr.P.C.
6. Admittedly, the incident took place at the PS which is revealed from the complaint itself. The learned court below was of the opinion that since opposite party No.2 was on duty being the OIC of the P.S and the alleged incident having taken place at t
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
