Advocates:
['M/S BIJAYA KUMAR RAGADA', '', 'L N PATEL', 'N K DAS', 'S BEHERA']

Page 1 of 3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

CRLMC No.869 of 2012

Dhusu @ Dhusa Das & Another

….

Petitioners

Mr. B.K.Ragada, Advocate

-Versus-

State of Odisha and another

….

Opposite Parties

Mr. P.K.Mohanty, ASC

CORAM:

MR. JUSTICE R.K. PATTANAIK

Order No.

ORDER

20.05.2022

06.

1.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned

counsel for the State.

2.

This is an application under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. filed by the

petitioners challenging an order of cognizance dated 26^th December,

2011 passed in G.R. Case No. 2554 of 2011 arising out of

Kharvelanagar P.S. Case No. 172 (10) of 2011 registered under Section

302 IPC pending in the file of learned SDJM, Bhubaneswar on the

ground that there is no prima facie case against them to the offence of

murder as well as under Section 212 IPC.

3.

Initially, after the F.I.R. was lodged under Section 302 IPC, a

case was registered in which the principal accused, namely, Kabu

Behera was arrested and thereafter, the petitioners on the allegation

that both harboured the former, who allegedly committed murder of

the victim, whose body was noticed by the complainant. In fact,

initially the petitioners were arrested only under Section 214 IPC and

// 2 //

Page 2 of 3

thereafter, forwarded to the court but later on, charge sheet was filed

against them including the principal accused under Sections

302/394/397/212/34 IPC, whereupon, the learned court below took

cognizance and passed the impugned order dated 26^th December,

2011.

4.

Mr. Ragada, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners

submits that there is even no prima facie case under Section 212 IPC so

to say leave alone an offence under Section 302 IPC which has been

alleged against the accused persons, inasmuch as, the involvement in

the alleged murder is shown against the principal accused, namely,

Kabu Behera, whom both stated to have harboured after the alleged

incident, considering which, the order of cognizance dated 26^th

December, 2011 should be quashed.

5. Mr. Mohanty, learned Additional Standing Counsel contends that

the allegation is with regard to murder of the victim whose

unidentified body was found, later to which, the report was lodged by

the complainant and it ultimately revealed the involvement of the

accused, namely, Kabu Behera. It is fairly conceded by Mr. Mohanty

that there is no specific allegation or any material to show that the

petitioners have had a role in the commission of crime, such as, the

murder of the victim.

6.

Mr. Ragada submits that the principal accused, rather,

confessed to have committed the crime of having killed the victim and

as such, there is no role played by the petitioners except allegation is

regarding harbouring the principal accused. From the record, it is

revealed that the petitioners were forwarded to the court under

Section 214/34 IPC and the offence since bailable in nature, both were

released on bail by order dated 9^th September, 2011. However, the

petitioners were roped in subsequently at the time of filing of charge

// 3 //

Page 3 of 3

sheet with the allegation that all the accused persons to be involved in

the alleged incident. But, the Court does not find any material

showing the complicity of the petitioners as to the murder of the

victim which is alleged to have been committed by the principal

accused, namely, Kabu Behera, who was initially forwarded to the

court for the said offence and subsequently charge sheeted. Rather, the

primary allegation is to the effect that the petitioners subsequent to the

incident either harboured or assisted in the concealing of the principal

accused, namely, Kabu Behe