Orissa High Court
Mantu Majhi vs State Of Odisha …. Opp. Party on 6 January, 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
CRLMC No.4158 of 2024
Mantu Majhi .... Petitioner
Mr.Padmalochan
Mohanty,
Advocate
-versus-
State of Odisha .... Opp. Party
Mr.S.J.Mohanty
ASC
CORAM:
JUSTICE SIBO SANKAR MISHRA
Order ORDER No. 06.01.2025 01. 1. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated
27.08.2024 passed by the learned JMFC(C), Balasore
in C.T. No.480 of 2023, whereby the application of
the petitioner under Section 239 of the Cr. P.C.
seeking discharge from all charged offences, the
cognizance of which has been taken by the Court
below has been turned down.
2. The learned Court below, by a detailed order, has
turned down the prayer of discharge made by the
petitioner while adverting to the facts as well as the
law.
Page 1 of 4
3. After the investigation, the charge sheet has been
filed in the present case on 06.09.2023 against
several accused persons including the present
petitioner.
4. From the investigation, it reveals that, a piece of
land in the village was sought to be acquired for
establishing a Bank note Paper Mill by the Reserve
Bank of India. The land falls under the Chasakhanda
Grama Panchayat. On the said piece of land, the
local inhabitants have unauthorized encroached.
The subject land was acquired after following the due
process of law. The eviction drive was carried out
with the help of the police on 23.08.2023.
Accordingly, the police team was mobilized to ensure
to the maintain law & order. When the team arrived
at the spot, one young man of 30 years old, found
mobilizing the local people over telephone to gather at
the spot so as to prevent the eviction process. When
the police team tried to prevent the said young man,
he flared up and created nuisance. He has started
man-handling the officers. It is also alleged that, the
young man put the mud-stained fingers on the chest
of one lady Officer. When this development was
unfolding, by that time, the supporters of the young
man arrived at the spot and prevented the law
enforcing agency from evicting the unauthorized
occupants. It was specifically ascertained that the
present petitioner namely, Mantu Majhi had pre-
Page 2 of 4
planned the entire thing so as to stop the eviction
process.
5. The Investigating Agency has collected the
materials in support of the allegation made in the
form of oral evidence as well as certain seizure
documents. Accordingly, the charge sheet has been
filed for the alleged commission of the offences
punishable under Sections 186/ 353/ 354/ 294/
323/506 of the IPC.
6. The petitioner moved an application for discharge
from the said charges on various grounds.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner has taken me
to the statements of the witnesses recorded under
Section 161 of the Cr. P.C. and other materials on
record. He submitted that the petitioner has been
falsely implicated in the case. He further submitted
that the police has unauthorisedly seized the mobile
phone of the petitioner and has never attempted to
obtain the call records of the petitioner to support the
allegation that, he was instigating and calling the
villagers to gather at the place of the occurrence.
Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits
that the learned trial Court has not analyzed the
evidence on the basis of which the charge sheet has
been filed.
8. I have perused the evidence form part of the
charge sheet and on the strength of the same, I have
analysed the impugned order.
Page 3 of 4
9. I am unable to agree with the contention raised
by the learned counsel for the petitioner because the
contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is
that, the quality of the evidence collected by the
police to substantiate the charge against the
petitioner being very poor, subjecting the petitioner to
the trial would be a futile exercise.
10. The learned trial Court has rightly rejected the
application of the petitioner under Section 239 of the
Cr. P.C. by relying upon various judgments of the
Hon’ble Supreme Court. The learned trial Court has
rightly arrived at the conclusion that the Court, while
framing the charges, need only to see the prima facie
case is made out against the accused person on the
basis of the materials available in the charge sheet or
not. This test being a sole test is satisfied in the
present case, no illegality or impropriety is found
from the impugned order.
11. Hence, I am not inclined to interfere in the
impugned order. Accordingly, the CRLMC stands
dismissed.
(S.S. Mishra)
Judge
Subhasis
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: SUBHASIS MOHANTY
Designation: Personal Assistant
Reason: Authentication
Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack.
Date: 06-Jan-2025 19:11:14
Page 4 of 4