Proceedings may be quashed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. when prosecution witnesses turn hostile and there’s insufficient evidence, indicating a lack of prospect for conviction.

JUDGMENT :

R.K. PATTANAIK, J.

1. Instant petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is at the behest of the petitioner for quashing of the proceeding in connection with G.R. Case No. 1194(A) of 2012 pending in the file of learned SDJM, Kendrapara corresponding to Patkura P.S. Case No. 213 of 2012 on the grounds inter alia that one of the accused persons, namely, Ramesh @ Binod Bihari Mohanty has been acquitted of all the charges after a full-fledged trial in S.T. Case No. 227 of 2013 by judgment dated 17^th March, 2022 of the learned Special Judge, Kendrapara.

2. In fact, the informant lodged the F.I.R. for the alleged occurrence describing therein the circumstances leading to the death of the victim being assaulted by the petitioner and others. After completion of investigation, chargesheet was submitted against the petitioner and other accused persons. The chargesheet was filed under Section 302 IPC and other allied offences showing the petitioner as an absconder. In the meanwhile, two of the accused persons, namely, Ramesh @ Binod Bihari Mohanty and Jugal Mohanty were committed to the Sessions court for trial. After such commitment, one of the accused, namely, Jugal Mohanty died and the case was against him was abated on 8th November, 2021. The other accused faced the trial and ultimately, he was acquitted of the charges by the judgment dated 17^th March, 2022 in S.T. Cases No. 227 of 2013. Since there has been an order of acquittal against one of the accused persons, the petitioner, who is yet to be committed to the Sessions court, has approached this Court for quashing of the proceeding in G.R. Case No. 1194(A) of 2012 pending in the file of learned SDJM, Kendrapara on the ground that the evidence so received during trial in S.T. Case No. 227 of 2013 is entirely hostile and as there is absolutely no possibility of any result in favour of the prosecution, continuation of the proceeding would be an abuse of process of law and hence, in exercise of the Court’s inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C., it deserves to be quashed.

3. Heard Mr. Dash, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Praharaj, learned counsel for the State besides Mr. Mohanty, learned counsel for the informant.

4. Mr. Dash, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the material witnesses including informant examined by the prosecution in S.T. Case No. 227 of 2013 did not whisper anything about the incident, rather, turned hostile. Referring to the evidence of the informant examined as P.W. 2 & other material witnesses, such as, P.Ws 1, 3 to 7 received in S.T. Case No. 227 of 2013 (as copies of the depositions of the said witnesses supplied), it is submitted by Mr. Dash that no fruitful purpose would be served to direct the petitioner to face the enquiry and trial after commitment. It is further submitted that when all the prosecution witnesses have turned hostile and that apart, one of the accused stands acquitted, any such conviction with the aid of Section 149 IPC is no more feasible. It is therefore contended that the proceeding corresponding to G.R. Case No. 1194(A) of 2012 and any such exercise after commitment would yield no result. In support of such contention, Mr. Dash cited the following decisions, such as, CBI Vrs. Akhilesh Singh (2005) 30 OCR(SC) 201; Santosh Kumar Maity Vrs. State of Orissa (2006) 35 OCR 151; Upendra Sahoo @ Upendra Kumar Sahoo Vrs. State of Orissa (2006) 35 OCR 171; Braja Kishore Das & Others Vrs. State of Orissa 2013(II) OLR 433; Surendra Kumar @ Surendra Routray and Another Vrs. State of Orissa 2011 (I) OLR 1052 and Satyaban Pradhan @ Kuna Pradhan Vrs. State of Odisha (2016)63 OCR 87 and contended that inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. should