PRAFULLA KUMAR PATEL Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application under S. 482, Cr. P.C. for quashing the order dated 26-11-97 taking cognizance under S. 395, IPC in ICC No. 7 of 1996.

(2.) The case of the petitioners is that they are working as Supervisors in the Kuchinda Co-operative Agriculture Rural Development Bank at Kuchinda which is a co-operative Bank under the Department of Co-operation. Opposite party No. 2 had taken a loan from the said Bank and he defaulted in payment of the instalments. The Assistant Registrar of the co-operative Societies passed an award of Rs. 4,408.69 in favour of the Bank on 19-2-94. In spite of the award the opposite party No. 2 did not pay the amount for which an execution was levied against opposite party No. 2 for realisation of the amount under the provisions of the Orissa Co-operative Societies Act, 1962. The Sales Officer-cum-AMCs issued notice to the petitioners in connection with the application for execution and requested them to be present on 27-2-96. On getting notice the petitioners were present on the said date and thereafter proceeded to the village of opposite party No. 2 for attachment of the property as per notice dated 26-2-96 issued by the Sales Officer. On the said date certain movable properties of opposite party No. 2 were attached and the date of sale was fixed to 13-3-96. The seized movable properties were given in the jima of opposite party No. 2 who received the copy of the inventory list and the attached properties on 26-2-1996 in presence of witnesses. However, he filed a complaint against the petitioners on 29-1-96 stating that during his absence from the house as well as absence of his wife, all the petitioners broke open the lock of the house, forcibly entered inside and took away the properties mentioned in schedule 'A' of the complaint petition. He further stated in the complaint petition that the police station did not receive the FIR as a result of which the same was sent by registered post on 28-2-96.

(3.) After receipt of the complaint, the learned Magistrate appears to have directed the Officer-in-charge of Kuchinda Police Station to make an inquiry and submit a report. Annexure-6 is the report of the officer-in-charge who has reported that the attachment was executed as per the provisions of law and the petitioners had seized the articles in their official capacity as officers of the CARD Bank, Kuchinda. He further reported that no FIR was lodged in the police station. The learned Magistrate, however, ignoring the report of the officer-in-charge, by order dated 26-11-1997 took cognizance under S. 398, IPC.