Orissa High Court
Ranjan Kumar Khilar vs State Of Odisha …. Opp. Party on 2 July, 2025
Author: Chittaranjan Dash
Bench: Chittaranjan Dash
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
CRLMC No. 4450 of 2023
Ranjan Kumar Khilar .... Petitioner
Mr. P.S. Das,
Das Advocate
-versus-
State of Odisha .... Opp. Party
Mrs. S. Mohanty, ASC
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE
BLE MR. JUSTICE CHITTARANJAN DASH
Date of Judgment: 02.07.2025
Chittaranjan Dash, J.
1. By means of the present application, the Petitioner seeks the
indulgence of this Court praying to quash the order of cognizance
dated 03.08.2015 in G.R. Case No.1102 of 2011 (arising
(ar of
Ghatgaon P.S. Case No.148 of 2011) passed by the learned
S.D.J.M., Keonjhar under Annexure-2.
Annexure
1. The background facts of the case are that the Complainant,
Basanta
nta Kumar Sahoo, presented a Written Report before the IIC,
Ghatgaon P.S. on 27.11.2011,
27.11.2011 alleging that on the previous night
i.e. 26.11.2011, about 7 unknown persons committed dacoity in
respect of one Truck bearing Regd. No. OR-2BED-2836,
OR 2836, loaded
with iron rods while the vehicle was on N.H. 215 near Kukurpota
bridge on the point of a pistol. On the basis of such complaint,
complaint the
Ghatgaon P.S. Case No. l48 of 2011 was registered and
CRLMC No. 4450 of 2023 Page 1 of 6
investigation commenced. Upon completion of the investigation,
the Charge-Sheet was submitted implicating the present Petitioner
as one of the accused in connection with the offences
offence under
Sections 395/412/109 of IPC, r/w. Section 25 of the Arms Act.
2. The learned S.D.J.M., Keonjhar vide order dated
03.08.2015 having found material against the Petitioner took
cognizance to proceed against the Petitioner. The relevant portions
of the impugned order reads as follows:-
follows:
“…….Perused
Perused the FIR, charge sheets i.e CS. No. 78,
dated 04.06.2012 and Supplementary C.S. No. 122,
dated 28.07.2015, statement of witnesses recorded
U/s-161
161 Cr.P.C and all the documents available
therein. There is prima-facie
prima facie case for the alleged
offences U/s 395/412/109 IPC against the accused
persons namely Dillip Kumar Behera, Ranjan Kumar
Khillar and Nohian @ Narottam
Narottam Khillar and U/s-
U/s
395/412/109 IPC/25 Arms Act against the accused
persons namely 1. Sonu @Asim Kumar Guha, 2.
Chinu @ Chinmaya Jena, 3. Raju @ Sk. Suleman, 4.
Sk. Essan, 5. Papun @ Ranjan Kumar Behera. 6.
Jita@ Kalia @Jitendra Patra, 7. Prafulla Kumar
Patra,
ra, 8. Papu @ Tapan Kumar Sethy, 9. Dipu @
Deepak Kumar Palei, 10. Rangadhar Dehory. Hence,
cognizance of offence punishable U/s-395/412/109
U/s 395/412/109
IPC/25 Arms Act is taken. The accused persons
namely 1. Dillip Kumar Behera, 2. Ranjan Kumar
Khilar. 3. Nohian @ Narottam
Narottam Khilar, 4. Sonu @CRLMC No. 4450 of 2023 Page 2 of 6
Asim Kumar Guha, 5. Chinu @ Chinmaya Jena, 6.
Raju @ Sk. Suleman, 7. Sk. Essan, 8. Papun @
Ranjan Kumar Behera, 9. Jitu @ Kalia @ Jitendra
Patra, 10. Prafulla Kumar Patra, 11. Papu @ Tapan
Kumar Sethy, 12. Dipu @ Deepak Kumar Palei are
on Court bail and the accused person namely
Rangadhar Dehury is absconder. Hand over the
record to G/C.”.
G/C
3. The learned
earned counsel for the Petitioner,
Petitioner in course of hearing
in this application,
application submitted that the Petitioner is an innocent
person and no material
material is forthcoming against him either in the FIR
or in the statement of the witnesses,
witnesses involving him in any manner in
any of the offenses alleged and therefore, the impugned order
taking cognizance against the present Petitioner is palpably illegal
and cannot
nnot sustain in the eye of law and this Court in exercise of the
jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.PC may quash the cognizance.
4. The learned counsel for the State,
State on the other hand,
hand
vehemently opposed the contentions raised by the learned counsel
for the Petitioner and took this Court to the narration of the brief
history given in the Charge-Sheet
Sheet beside the statement of the
witnesses.
5. The brief history of the case clearly implicates the Petitioner
to be one of the key-accused
key in the alleged dacoity of the truck
loaded with the iron rods. The truck and the stolen materials have
been seized therein.
therein. The submissions of the learned counsel for the
Petitioner that the involvement of the Petitioner simply on the basis
of the statement of the co-accused
co that
at he got him introduced with
CRLMC No. 4450 of 2023 Page 3 of 6
the person who purchased the stolen material is not the sole
material. The case record reveals several facts that directly connect
the Petitioner to the core of the alleged offence. He is stated to be
one of the ten individuals
individuals who actively participated in the dacoity
on the highway. Therefore, a strong prima facie case is well made
out against him, and he cannot be absolved from the rigour of law at
this stage.
6. The Hon’ble Apex Court in its decision in the matter of
State of Haryana vs. Bhajanlal reported in 1992 Supp(1) SCC
335,, has laid down the following guidelines for exercise of power
under Section 482:-
482:
“(1) Where the allegations made in the first information
report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their
face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima
facie constitute any offence or make out a case against
the accused.
(2) Where the allegations in the first information report
and other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do
not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an
investigation by police officers under Section 156(1) of
the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within
the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code.
(3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the
FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support
of the same do not disclose the commission of any
offence and make out a case against the accused.
(4) Where, the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a
cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable
non cognizable
offence, no investigation
investigation is permitted by a police officer
without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under
Section 155(2) of the Code.
(5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint
are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of
which no prudent person can ever reach a justCRLMC No. 4450 of 2023 Page 4 of 6
conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding
against the accused.
(6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any
of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act
(under which a criminal proceeding is instituted)
instituted) to the
institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or
where there is a specific provision in the Code or the
concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the
grievance of the aggrieved party.
(7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly
manifestly attended
with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is
maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for
wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to
spite him due to private and personal grudge.”
7. In view of the above, this Court finds it pertinent to reiterate
that while the power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is to be exercised
sparingly though it can be invoked to prevent abuse of the process
of court where the allegations are patently absurd or manifestly
attend to implicate a person without
without any foundational basis. In the
case in hand, the name of the present Petitioner is found actively to
have participated in the alleged dacoity, constituting the offences
which requires appreciation of evidence.
evidence It is well settled that the
pleas advanced by
by the Petitioner, which pertain to the sufficiency of
evidence or suggest a probable defence, cannot be examined within
the limited scope of interference under Section 482 Cr.P.C. at the
pre-trial
trial stage. Accordingly, this Court finds no ground to quash the
order of cognizance.
cognizance
8. As a result, this Court is of the considered opinion that there
is prima facie material against the Petitioner to proceed in trial and
this Court is not inclined to interfere with the impugned order
which is just and proper. However, it is open to the Petitioner to
CRLMC No. 4450 of 2023 Page 5 of 6
raise all possible permissible legal and factual plea at the
appropriate stage including the stage of framing of charge in
accordance with law.
The CRLMC is hence disposed of.
(Chittaranjan Dash)
Judge
Bijay
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BIJAY KETAN SAHOO
Reason: Authentication
Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA
Date: 03-Jul-2025 16:06:04
CRLMC No. 4450 of 2023 Page 6 of 6