Advocates:
['MANASH RANJAN NAYAK', '', 'B PUJARI', 'B P MISHRA']

Page 1 of 3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

CRLMC No.2051 of 2022

Muna @ Dasmat Tudu.

&.

Petitioner

-versus-

State of Odisha.

&.

Opposite Party

CORAM: JUSTICE S.PUJAHARI

Order No.

ORDER

12.08.2022

01.

1.

This matter is taken up through Hybrid mode.

2.

The petitioner in this application under Section 482 of

the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short <Cr.P.C.=) has

prayed for quashing of the order dated 17.09.2011 passed by

the learned S.D.J.M.(S), Cuttack in G.R. Case No.304 of 2011

taking cognizance of the offences under Sections 341, 323, 294,

354 and 506/34 of IPC.

3.

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the

learned counsel for the State.

4.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that no overt

act has been played by the petitioner in this case and some of

the witnesses have also not whispered the name of the present

// 2 //

Page 2 of 3

petitioner. Since a set of witnesses indicted the petitioner and

another set of witnesses having not indicted him, coupled with

the fact that in the F.I.R. no whisper has been made against the

petitioner by the victim, the impugned order of cognizance as

well as the entire proceeding is liable to be quashed.

5.

On the other hand, the learned counsel for the State

submits that since some of the witnesses have categorically

stated that the present petitioner along with others have also

played overt act in this case, this Court should be loathed in

interfering with the impugned order.

6.

Needless to say that the F.I.R. is not the be all and all of

a case. Even if a person is not named in the FIR, during the

investigation if any incriminating materials come against him

indicating his involvement in commission of the offence, he

can very well be challaned by the police and on scrutiny if the

Court finds the challan so submitted against him have

substance, there is no impediment to proceed against him after

taking cognizance on such police report. Furthermore, at this

stage, the Court is not required to examine the truthfulness or

the veracity of the version of the witnesses. It can simply sift

materials in police report to find out commission of any offence

and if that be so, then whether the person who has been

challaned, has any role to play in such offence if answer is in

affirmative, the Court has to take cognizance of the offence and

proceed against the person indicted in such offence. The

// 3 //

Page 3 of 3

aforesaid being the settled position of law, the prayer made by

the petitioner to quash the order of cognizance as well as the

proceeding on the ground stated, therefore, is devoid of merit.

7.

However,

this

Court

observes

that

since

the

consideration of framing of charge and taking of cognizance are

quite distinct and different, if the petitioner makes any

submission at the time of framing of charge that no material is

there to proceed against him, the Court concerned shall decide

the same in the manner known to law without being influenced

by this order.

8.

With the aforesaid order, this CRLMC stands disposed

of being dismissed.

(S. Pujahari)

Judge

MRS