IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK CRLMC No.4179 of 2024 Abhaya Kumar Sahoo and another …. Petitioner(s) Mr. D. R. Mohapatra, Advocate -versus- State of Odisha …. Opposite Party(s) Mr. U. R. Jena, AGA CRLMC No.869 of 2023 Mahendra Kumar Behera …. Petitioner(s) Mr. D. R. Mohapatra, Advocate Ms. S. Pradhan, Advocate -versus- State of Odisha …. Opposite Party(s) Mr. U. R. Jena, AGA CORAM: JUSTICE SIBO SANKAR MISHRA Order No. ORDER 06.02.2025 05. 1. Heard. 2. The petitioners are arrayed as accused in the F.I.R dated 03.10.2019 in Khordha STF P.S. Case No.15 of 2019 registered for the alleged commission of offences punishable under Sections 379/413/120(B)/34/420/467/468/471/472 of the I.P.C. read with Section 21 of the MMDR Act and Section 25/27 of the Arms Act. Page 2 of 4 They have assailed the order dated 21.02.2022 passed by the learned S.D.J.M., Talcher in G.R. Case No.1196 of 2019, whereby the learned Court below has taken cognizance of the offences as mentioned above and issued process against the accused persons including the petitioners. 3. After investigation, charge-sheet has been filed in the present case on 05.01.2022 for the alleged commission of offences under Sections 379/411/413/467/468/471/472/120(B)/34 of I.P.C. read with Section 21 of the MMDR Act against the petitioners. 4. Mr. Mohapatra, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that even if the allegation made in the charge-sheet is taken to be true, no case is made out against the petitioners because the transit pass issued in favour of the petitioners are found to be genuine as per the investigation report filed by the police. He has relied upon the passage from the charge-sheet to persuade the court in that regard. The said passage reads thus:- <Sufficient evidence could not be substantiated against other suspected/accused persons. Similarly, no evidence regarding possession or use of fire arms attracting Sec. 25/27 Arms Act could be substantiated. I have also requested the Dy. Director, Mines, Talcher vide this office Letter No.6013/STF, Dt. 24.12.2021 to certify genuineness of the documents and to attend query in this regard by sending 5 sets of Transit pass, seized from involved drivers at different occasions. The Dy. Director, Mines, Talcher Circle, Talcher vide his letter No.2342/Mines, Dt. 30.12.2021 opined that, after examining the genuineness of the Transit passes sent to him, 4 e-pass destination copies are forged and fabricated. As such, it is well evidence that, these forged documents were prepared to use as genuine for the purpose of cheating.= 5. Mr. Mohapatra, submits that out of five transit passes, four transit passes found to be forged whereas one transit pass is found to be genuine which indeed has been issued in favour of the petitioners. Therefore, the Investigating Officer despite recording the above facts in the charge-sheet arrayed the petitioners as accused, which shows the non-application of mind. 6. In the present petition, the petitioners in paragraph-22 has averred as under:- 22.That it is most relevant to submit here that admittedly the petitioners have the remedy to raise all the above points at the time of framing of charge. But in the present case, looking into the numbers of the accused persons involved in the case more particularly the appearance stage has not yet been completed; it is not sure when the stage of framing of charge will come. Therefore, for doing complete justice; invocation of inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. in the present facts and circumstances of the case is highly essential.= The apprehension of the petitioners that since there are number of accused persons implicated by the prosecution and the matter is at the appearance stage, their application for discharge may not heard till the appearance of all the accused persons. Page 4 of 4 7. The apprehension of the petitioners expressed in the aforementioned paragraph reproduced from the petition is unfounded because the petitioners have already appeared before the Court below in the present case. Therefore, if they move an application for discharge before the Court below, the same shall be heard independent of the fact that the other accused persons are not appeared as yet. 8. With this observation, the CRLMC is disposed of. (S.S. Mishra) Judge Swarna