Court mandates reasoned orders in discharge applications per Section 245 of Cr.P.C.; failure to address specific grounds renders rejection invalid.

JUDGMENT :

SASHIKANTA MISHRA, J.

The petitioner is an accused in ICC Case No. 74 of 2012 corresponding to C.T. Case No. 1315 of 2005 of the Court of learned JMFC (LR) Angul. In the present application, filed under Section 482 of Cr. P.C., he seeks to challenge the order dated 30.05.2024 passed by the said Court in rejecting his application for discharge from the case.

2. The facts, relevant only to decide the present application are as follows;

The present Opposite Party No.2 filed FIR before the OIC, Bantala Police Station on 20.07.2005 alleging therein that she had set up an industry by availing loan from the OSFC, Angul Branch. On 03.03.2001, the industry was illegally seized by OSFC and auctioned in favour of the petitioner on 28.02.2002. The Opposite Party No.2 challenged such action of the OSFC before this Court by filing a writ application (OJC No. 3777 of 2002). This Court granted stay of the order of transfer. While the matter stood thus, the petitioner, despite being aware of the order of stay, wrongfully trespassed into the factory premises on 22.10.2004, dismantled the unit by forcibly breaking the front gate and doors and removed the iron truss, AC & GI Sheets of the main gate and also the installed machineries approximately amounting to Rs. 12 lakhs. On such FIR, Bantala P.S. Case No. 45 of 2005 was registered under Sections 447 /448/427/379/294/506 of IPC and investigation was taken up. Upon completion of investigation, final report was submitted on 27.12.2006. After lapse of 6 years, the Opposite Party No.2 filed protest petition in Court of learned SDJM, Angul which came to be registered as ICC case No. 74 of 2012 under the aforementioned offences. After conducting inquiry as contemplated under Section 202 of Cr.P.C., the Court below took cognizance of the offences under /448/427/380/506 of . Upon appearance after receipt of summons, the petitioner filed an application for discharge on the ground that no prima facie case is made out which was however rejected by learned JMFC by order dated 07.06.2018. The petitioner approached the Court of learned Sessions Judge, Angul in Criminal Revision No. 10 of 2018 but the same was also dismissed on 27.02.2020. The petitioner thereafter approached this Court in CRLMC No. 166 of 2021 which was disposed of on 19.05.2023 permitting the petitioner to raise all the pleas urged in the said petition before the trial Court at the appropriate stage.

3. Being thus permitted, the petitioner filed discharge petition again before the trial Court raising all the grounds taken by him in CRLMC No. 166 of 2021. By order dated 19.05.2023, learned JMFC ( LR) Angul rejected the petition.

4. Heard Mr. P.K.Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. S. Behera, learned AGA for the State and Mr. S.C.Mishra, learned counsel appearing for the Opposite Party No.2.

5. Mr. P.K.Mishra would argue that the impugned order is unsustainable in the eye of law as it does not disclose the reasons for rejecting the petition for discharge.

6. Mr. Behera, learned AGA would submit that there being a prima facie case available against the petitioner, the Court has rightly refused to discharge him from the case.

7. Mr. S.C. Mishra would submit that the Court below upon consideration of the prima facie evidence during the inquiry under Section 202 of Cr.P.C. took cognizance of the offences. The petitioner has not been able to demonstrate that there is no prima facie case against him. The application for discharge was therefore, rightly rejected.

8. Reference to the impugned order reveals that after relating the relevant facts the Court below has referred to the relevant statutory provision namely, Section 245 of