Orissa High Court Denies To Discharge Persons Accused Of Making Violent Ruckus At Residence Of CM's Private Secretary

"After going through the case records minutely particularly the statements of the witnesses, the seizures in the case, it cannot be said that there is absence of prima facie material against the petitioners. The learned trial Court has also found that there are materials available in the case record that on 10.02.2018 at about 10.00 a.m., the petitioners entered into the official residential quarters of Mr. V.K. Pandian raising hulla and assaulted the security guard, abused the informant in filthy language, damaged the flower pots so also glass pans of the quarters and the motorcycle and seizure of those damaged articles were made."

Factual Background:

An FIR was lodged on 10.02.2018 by one security guard in the quarters of Mr. V.K. Pandian, IAS. It was stated therein that on that day at about 10.00 AM, while he was in his duty at the residence of Mr. Pandian, some persons came with TV camera and gave their identities as the reporters of OTV and conveyed that they had come to take interview of Mr. Pandian. The informant told them that Mr. Pandian was not available in the quarters and asked them to come later.

After some time, hearing hulla near the gate, the informant came out of the guard room and found thirty to forty persons kicked the main gate and barged in to the premises holding flags of a political party. The two persons who had earlier come and identified themselves as camera man and the reporter of OTV also entered the premises with them and when the informant protested, they abused him in obscene languages and started throwing the flower pots aiming at the glass pan of the quarters. They also damaged a motorcycle and some of them caught hold of the throat of the informant and dragged him into the guard room. They pressed his throat as a result of which the informant felt suffocated.

Then the trespassers asked the informant about Mr. Pandian and also told him naming two politicians of a particular political party to have asked them to do such activities so that Mr. Pandian would be compelled to quit Odisha. The informant with much difficulty managed to escape from the clutches of the miscreants and came out of the guard room. The culprits caught hold of the informant and forced him to raise slogans in support of the two politicians by holding party flags. When hearing such hulla, people gathered at the spot, the culprits left the quarters giving threat, using obscene languages.

After the lodgement of FIR, investigation was carried out. On completion of investigation, as prima facie case was found against the petitioners, charge sheet was submitted under sections 147/452/455/294/353/189/152/307/323/ 506/427/149/120-B/34 of the Indian Penal Code. The petitioners filed a discharge petition before the Trial Court, which held that it is difficult to believe that the charges against the accused persons are groundless, without scrutiny of evidence on record at that stage and accordingly, rejected the discharge petition. Hence, this review petition was filed.

Contentions of the Petitioners:

Mr. Arun Kumar Nayak, counsel for the petitioners, contended that a false case has been foisted on account of political rivalry and the ingredients of the offence under section 307 of the IPC are not attracted and no specific overt act has been alleged against any of the petitioners and the witnesses examined are mostly official witnesses and no independent witness has stated about the incident.

He further submitted that another FIR was lodged at the instance of one Shri Markand Mishra, S.I. of Police, Capital police station and a completely different version of the incident has been mentioned therein. Thus, it was contended that the continuance of the criminal proceeding against the petitioners would be an abuse of process of Court and therefore, the Trial Court has erred in rejecting the petition filed by the petitioners for discharge.

Contentions of the Respondent/State:

Mr. Manoranjan Mishra, Additional Standing Counsel for the State, backed the impugned order and contended that when a number of witnesses examined during investigation have implicated the petitioners to be the miscreants in the occurrence, the manner in which the crime has been committed, the unauthorized entry of the petitioners into the residential quarters of the Private Secretary to the Chief Minister and the overt act committed by the petitioners clearly made out prima facie case against them.

It was argued that at this stage, meticulous examination of the evidence on record is not warranted and the truth, veracity and the effect of the evidence of the prosecution case should be adjudicated at the appropriate stage of trial and therefore, the revision petition should be dismissed.

Court's Observations:

The Court observed that the object of discharge under Section 239 of Cr.P.C. is to save the accused from unnecessary and prolonged harassment. When the allegations are baseless or without foundation and no prima facie case is made out, it is just and proper to discharge the accused to prevent abuse of process of the Court. If there is no ground for presuming that accused has committed an offence, the charges must be considered to be groundless. The ground may be any valid ground including the insufficiency of evidence to prove the charge.

The Court was of the view that it cannot be said that this case is a false one and on account of political rivalry, it has been foisted against the petitioners. It held,

"Once the facts and ingredients of the sections exist, then the Court would be right in presuming that there is ground to proceed against the accused and frame charge accordingly. A strong suspicion is sufficient for framing charges, which must be founded on some material. The veracity and effect of the evidence which the prosecutor proposes to adduce are not to be meticulously judged at that stage nor the Court is to consider whether there is sufficient ground for conviction of the accused or not."

Further, it observed that the contention raised by the counsel for the petitioners that another FIR was lodged relating to the occurrence in which the informant (of the said FIR) has presented a different version is to be brought on record at the stage of trial in accordance with law and if the defence brings to the satisfaction of the Trial Court at that stage that the prosecution case is not believable in view of different versions of the occurrence and therefore, the implication of the petitioners is doubtful, the Trial Court shall deal with it in accordance with law at appropriate stage. At this stage, comparing the narration made in another FIR relating to the occurrence is not permissible.

Accordingly, it held that the Trial Court has rightly rejected the discharge petition filed by the petitioners and therefore, it found no reason to interfere with the same. Consequently, the review petition was dismissed.

Case Title: Abhisek Acharya & Ors. v. State of Odisha

Case No.: CRLREV No. 331 of 2022

Order Dated: 2^nd August 2022

Coram: Sangam Kumar Sahoo, J.

Counsel for the Petitioners: Mr. Arun Kumar Nayak, Advocate

Counsel for the Respondent/State: Mr. Manoranjan Mishra, Additional Standing Counsel

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ori) 120

Click Here To Read/Download Order