Orissa High Court
Vidya Chandra Vir Pradhan vs State Of Odisha ….. Opp. Party on 22 July, 2025
Author: Aditya Kumar Mohapatra
Bench: Aditya Kumar Mohapatra
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
CRLMC No.1858 of 2025
Vidya Chandra Vir Pradhan ..... Petitioner
Represented By Adv. -
Siddhant Mohanty
-versus-
State Of Odisha ..... Opp. Party
Represented By Adv. -
U.C. Jena, A.S.C.
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR
MOHAPATRA
ORDER
22.07.2025
Order No.
01. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement
(Virtual /Physical Mode).
2. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner as well as learned
counsel for the State. Perused the application as well as the
documents annexed thereto.
3. By filing the present application under Section 482 of the
Cr.P.C., the Petitioner seeks to invoke the inherent jurisdiction of
this Court for quashing of criminal proceeding in Special (NDPS)
Case No.146 of 2023 which arises out of Manamunda P.S. Case
No.133 of 2023 which was registered for commission of offence
punishable under Section 20(b)(ii)(c)/29 of the NDPS Act read
with Section 420/468 of the I.P.C. and at the moment pending
before the learned Additional Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge,
Kantamal, Boudh.
Page 1 of 4.
4. Learned counsel for the Petitioner at the outset contended
that although initially the Petitioner was named in the F.I.R.,
however, no charge sheet has been filed against the present
Petitioner. He further contended that the Petitioner has been
shown as a witness in the charge sheet. He further contended that
so far the present Petitioner is concerned, the allegation against
him is that he happens to be the registered owner of the vehicle
i.e. Innova Crysta which was involved in the alleged crime.
5. Learned counsel for the Petitioner in course of his
argument, referred to the order dated 14.08.2024 passed in
Criminal Misc. Case No.12 of 2024 by the learned Additional
Sessions Judge, Kantamal, while considering the application filed
by the Petitioner under Section 457 of the Cr.P.C. In order dated
14.08.2024, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kantamal has
clearly mentioned that the present Petitioner is not the accused in
this case. Thus, it clearly reveals that the Petitioner has not been
shown as an accused in the charge sheet and he is not being tried
in the present case as an accused.
6. Learned counsel for the Petitioner at this juncture contended
that the Petitioner apprehends his arrest as it is stated that the
investigation has been kept open. He further contended that in the
meantime some of the co-accused persons, who have faced in trial
in Special (NDPS) Case No.146 of 2023, have been acquitted by
the learned Additional Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge,
Kantamal vide judgment dated 21.03.2025. On a perusal of the
aforesaid judgment, it appears that in para-17 of the judgment, the
learned trial court has clearly observed that the accused, namely,
Harish Kumar Jaitwar was not found guilty of the offence under
Page 2 of 4.
Section 20(b)(ii)(C)/29 of the NDPS Act read with Section 468 of
the I.P.C. and he has been acquitted under Section 235(1) of the
Cr.P.C. In such view of the matter, learned counsel for the
Petitioner contended that the criminal proceeding in respect of the
Petitioner be quashed in exercise of the inherent power conferred
on this Court under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C.
7. Learned counsel for the State on the other hand contended
that the Petitioner has not been shown as an accused in the charge
sheet. He also referred to the order passed by the learned trial
court while considering the application of the Petitioner under
Section 457 of the Cr.P.C. and referred to the observation made
therein that the Petitioner is not an accused in this case. In such
view of the matter, learned counsel for the State contended that
the present application under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. to quash
the criminal proceeding is absolutely misconceived. Accordingly,
it was submitted that the present application is devoid of merit and
is liable to be quashed.
8. Having heard the learned counsels appearing from both
sides, on a careful examination of the background facts as well as
the documents attached to the application, this Court observes that
the Petitioner has not been shown as an accused in the charge
sheet, although the vehicle which was involved in the crime was
registered in the name of the present Petitioner. Moreover, the
observation of the learned trial court while disposing of the
application of the Petitioner under Section 457 of the Cr.P.C. is
very clear that the Petitioner is not an accused in the present case.
In such view of the matter, this Court holds that the present
application at the instance of the Petitioner is not maintainable.
Page 3 of 4.
9. Moreover, on perusal of order dated 14.08.2024 passed in
Criminal Misc. Case No.12 of 2024, it appears that the learned
trial court while dealing with the application of the Petitioner
under Section 457 of the Cr.P.C., has been pleased to order release
of the vehicle in favour of the Petitioner subject to certain terms
and conditions as mentioned in the ordering portion. In such view
of the matter, it is open to the Petitioner to take necessary steps in
the court below for release of such vehicle in terms of the order
dated 14.08.2024.
10. Accordingly, the CRLMC is disposed of.
Issue urgent certified copy of this order as per Rules.
( Aditya Kumar Mohapatra)
Judge
Anil
Signature Not Verified Page 4 of 4.
Digitally Signed
Signed by: ANIL KUMAR SAHOO
Designation: Junior Stenographer
Reason: Authentication
Location: High Court of Orissa
Date: 23-Jul-2025 11:38:59
