IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No. 16705 of 2013 Kanakalata Das ..…... Petitioner(s) Mr. B.B. Swain, Adv. -Versus- Kodaandadhar Patra & Ors. ………. Opposite Party(s) Mr. Piyush Panda, Adv. for O.P.2 Mr. P.K. Behera, Adv. for O.P. No.3 Ms. Sarita Moharana, ASC for O.P.4 CORAM: DR. JUSTICE SANJEEB K. PANIGRAHI ORDER 22.08.2025 Order No. 15. 1. This matter is taken up through hybrid arrangement. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 3. In this Writ Petition, the Petitioner has challenged the order dated 08.09.2010 passed by the learned 4th MACT, Jagatsinghpur in MAC Case No.08 of 2004 for initiation of proceeding under OPDR Act against him. 4. Learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that on 24.12.2003, the injured, Ghanashyam Behera (Opposite Party No.3) was travelling in a Trekker bearing Registration No.OR-05-C-4645 which belongs to the Petitioner. He further submits that the Trekker was parked Digitally Signed Signed by: LITARAM MURMU Reason: Authentication Location: OHC Date: 25-Aug-2025 17:53:23 Signature Not Verified 2 in the extreme left side of the road at Naladiagad for in and out of the passengers. But, the offending Truck bearing Registration No.OR-02-D-1031 came in high speed with rash and negligent manner and dashed against the Trekker causing grievous injuries to the occupants of the Trekker including the Opposite Party No.3. The Patkura Police Station registered a P.S. Case No.261 of 2003 corresponding to G.R. Case No.709 of 2003 for offence under Sections 279, 337, 338, 304 (A) of I.P.C. and took up investigation. Consequent upon the investigation, the police submitted the charge sheet against the accused driver of the Truck named Kartik Charan Guru for the offence under Sections 279, 338 and 304-A of I.P.C. 5. Learned counsel for the Petitioner further submits that since the Trekker was no way in picture in the entire proceedings, the Petitioner being the owner of the said Trekker was unaware of the fact that he was a party to the proceeding. He further submits that since the Trekker was no role to play in the entire episode, the Petitioner has unnecessarily been dragged into the case and he has been made a party to the certificate proceeding vide Certificate Case No.7 of 2012. Hence, the Petitioner is constrained to approach this Court for quashing of the certificate proceeding so far as the Petitioner is concerned. Digitally Signed Signed by: LITARAM MURMU Reason: Authentication Location: OHC Date: 25-Aug-2025 17:53:23 3 6. In such view of the matter and considering the submission made by the parties, this Court is of the view that the certificate proceeding initiating against the present Petitioner in Certificate Case No.7 of 2012 is hereby quashed. However, the Insurance Company is free to proceed against the offending Truck bearing Registration No.OR-02-D-1031. 7. Accordingly, the Writ Petition disposed of. ( Dr. Sanjeeb K. Panigrahi) Judge Murmu