Raju Pradhan and Others vs The State and Another

S. Naidu, J.—The parties in both the aforesaid cases are same, inasmuch as the informant in CRLMC No. 551/02 is Opposite Party No. 2 in CRLMC No. 1435/03. Both the cases arise out of a case and a counter case. Both the matters were heard together and are being disposed of by this order.

It was submitted that during the last Panchayat Election out of political rivalry, a case and a counter case were initiated against the parties resulting in registration or GR. Case Nos. 96 of 2002 and 97 of 2002 in - the Court of the J.M.F.C., Khallikote. The parties belong to the same village and the disputes cropped up sporadically without any mens rea. It was also submitted by the Learned Counsel for both sides that at the intervention of the well-wishers of the parties the disputes among them have been settled and the parties have filed their joint compromise petitions, vide Misc. Case No. 1740/03 in CRLMC No. 1435/03 and Misc. Case 1739/03 in CRLMC No. 551/03. The averments made in the said Misc. Case petitions clearly show that the disputes among the informant group and accused group have since been settled and the parties are residing in one village maintaining cordiality. The injury reports produced in the respective cases also reveal that the injuries sustained by the parties were all simple in nature and the ingredients of Section 307 Indian Penal Code are not satisfied. In view of the fact that the parties have since settled the disputes inter se between them and have brought back cordiality in the village, I feel that continuance of the criminal proceedings in G.R. Case Nos. 96 of 2002 and 97 of 2002 pending before the J.M.F.C., Khallikote would not be in the best interest of the parties. From the averments made in the compromise petitions it is also clear that ultimately both the G.R. Cases would end in acquittal as the parties are no more interested to prosecute the list.

I n view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, I feel that further continuance of the two G.R. Cases would be merely an abuse of the process of law. Accordingly, in the light of the ratio of the decision in the case of Nikhil Kumar Pattanaik and Ors. v. State of Orissa and Anr. reported in (2003) 25 OCR 255, I allow both the Criminal Misc. Cases and quash the further proceedings of G.R. Case Nos. 96 of 2002 and 97 of 2002 pending before the J.M.F.C., Khallikote.

All the Misc. Cases arising out of the two Criminal Misc. Cases are also disposed of.

Issue urgent certified copy.

Prabhu Dayal Deorah Vs. The District Magistrate, Kamrup and Others, wherein the detention order passed under Maintenance of Internal Security At was set aside on the finding that one of the grounds communicated to telit was vague. We fail to understand how the principle laid down in a case were challenge is made to preventive detention can have any application who ever to the case in hand.

With respect find the High Court judgment to be quite confusing and self contradictory. In para 18(c) it is observed that "there is no requirement to seek clearance before charge-sheets are filed" and in para 19 it is said that "the only requirement in this regard is of reporting and the role of the CVC on this would be to give its comments in its annual report. "In para 20 it is said that "the direct power of review granted to the CVC is only of pending applications for sanction" and "the CVC is not cast with the role of reviewing as such the steps taken in the course of investigation and thereafter. "In para 21 it is said that "the duty to report of the steps taken in the course of investigation is not and cannot be equated with the duty to obtain prior approval or consent of any other authority to these steps." Again in para 24 it is said that ''the contention of the Petitioner that a breach of these directions would render the action of the CBI void since the directions are to be rigidly complied with is equally misconceived." It is further said that "even the rigid compliance with these directions cannot go beyond the CVC over-viewing CBI''s working and the CBI''s reporting to the CVC."

The High Court having arrived at the aforesaid findings, the only result which could logically follow was to dismiss the petition. There was absolutely no occasion for allowing the same and quashing the cognizance and further proceeding in the case.

In view of the discussion made above the appeals are allowed and the judgment and order dated 10.6.2002 of the High Court is set aside. The learned Special Judge shall proceed with the trial of the case. While framing the charge he shall carefully scrutinise the material on record and other circumstances of the case in accordance with law.