Legal obligations necessitate that an informant must be consulted or notified prior to a public prosecutor's withdrawal of remarks on their case, emphasizing the importance of due process in adjudication.

JUDGMENT :

S.K. Panigrahi, J.

1. The Petitioner in CRLMP No.481 of 2022 prays to quash the order dated 12.11.2016 passed in G.R. Case No.13 of 2010 by the learned J.M.F.C., Ranpur permitting the learned Additional Public Prosecutor to withdraw the case under Section 321 of the Cr.P.C.

2. The Petitioner in CRLMP No.1478 of 2019 seeks a direction from this Court to the Opposite Party No.1/ Superintendent of Police, Nayagarh to conduct a fresh inquiry or reinvestigate the matter pertaining to Ranapur P.S. Case No.13 of 2010 in connection with G.R. Case No.13 of 2010 pending in the court of the learned J.M.F.C., Ranpur.

I. FACTUAL MATRIX OF THE CASE

3. The Petitioner who is the informant lodged a written report on 18.01.2010 in Ranapur P.S alleging, inter alia, that while he was proceeding to Berhampur from Bhubaneswar in the car bearing No.OR.02AY-8496 on 03.01.2010. Thereafter, a blue coloured Indica car with bearing No. OR.02-5556 dashed against his car from behind leaving him and the other occupants injured. The car was also badly damaged while the driver of the offending vehicle along with its occupants were in inebriated condition at that time of Committing accident.

4. After committing the accident, in order to conceal their crime, the four occupants of the other vehicle started abusing the petitioner in filthy language and threatened him. The other driver even came in front of the car of the petitioner to intimidate him. Accordingly, the police registered P.S case No. 13 of 2010 and submitted the charge sheet on 14.03.2011 for which cognizance was taken under Sections 337 and 279 of the I.P.C. only in G.R case No.13 of 2010 by the learned JMFC, Ranpur.

5. However, the police/ I.O changed the vehicle description with same number and the offender accused person without showing the actual offending driver for reasons best known to him. No material documents were filed in the charge-sheet of the offending vehicle and the identity of the offending driver also.

6. While the matter stood thus, the learned APP, after rejection of the Vakalatnama of the Petitioner, took advantage of the same and moved an application under Section 321 of the Cr.P.C. to drop the case in Lokadalat to which the learned court below also without applying its judicial mind allowed the same on 12.11.2016 under untenable grounds. Aggrieved of this, the petitioner has filed the writ petition.

II. PETITIONER’S SUBMISSIONS

7. Learned counsel for the Petitioner(s) earnestly made the following submissions in support of his contentions:

8. The court below has rejected the Vakalatnama of the informant. Before the withdrawal of the case, the informant should have been provided with a notice affording the informant an opportunity of hearing as it is the informant / victim who has initiated the criminal motion into action. Since, there is also no scope in future to the informant to correct the anomalies and discrepancies found on the face of the record per se, the court below before withdrawal should have examined the grounds of the petitioner under Section 321 of the Cr.P.C. which has not been done in this case.

9. Appropriate action under the Sections of the I.P.C & the M.V. Act. also has not been initiated against the offenders purposefully to allow them to escape from the clutches of law and the real accused persons cannot be identified if the informant is not given a chance to identify them in court.

10. The court below has every power and jurisdiction to refuse to accept the petition under Section 321 of the Cr.P.C. charge- sheet, more so, when the anomalies found are prima facie. The court below has committed a serious illegality by entertain