ASHOK DALWAI Vs. RADHANATH PRADHAN ALIAS BALU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard. On consent of the parties this case is disposed of at the stage of hearing on admission.

(2.) Both the above two applications under S. 482, Cr. P.C. have been separately filed by the two accused persons in ICC No. 32 of 1993 of the Court of S.D.J.M. Bhawanipatna with the prayer to quash the order of cognizance. Accused No. 1 Sri Ashok Dalwai has filed Criminal Misc. Case No. 751 of 1996 and accused No. 2 Smt. Arti Ahuja has filed Criminal Misc. Case No. 905 of 1996. Analogous hearing of both the Criminal Misc. cases is taken up as desired by the parties and this common judgment shall abide the result in both the cases.

(3.) On 28-8-1993 petitioner AshokDalwai, the then Collector of Kalahandi was holding grievance cell and the other officers including Smt. Arti Ahuja, the then Sub-Collector of Bhawanipatna Sub-division were present in that grievance cell. The complainant-opposite party had gone there to put forth his grievance in that grievance cell. At about 3.45 p.m. when he was called inside the office to putforth his grievance there occurred an incident in which according to the complainant riot only he was scolded by the petitioners but also on the direction of the Collector, petitioner Arti Ahuja along with a Peon of the Collectorate detain him and thereafter he was handed over to the Police. For the self-same occurrence two reports were lodged in Bhawanipatna one by the Tahasildar against the present opposite party and other by the opposite party against the present petitioners. Two cases were registered by the police on the basis of such informations. It is stated by learned counsel for the petitioners that the report submitted by the Tahsildar resulted in submission of a charge-sheet against the opposite party for the offences under Ss. 448/294/353/34, IPC read with S. 7 of the Criminal Law Amendment Act vide G.R. Case No. 377 of 1993 and that case ended with the conviction of the opposite party as per the judgment and conviction order dated 26-2-1994 passed by the C.J.M. Bhawanipatna. Learned counsel for the petitioners files a xerox copy (true copy attested by him) of that judgment. In that connection, learned counsel for the opposite party while not disputing correctness of the xerox copy of the judgment, states that an appeal preferred by the opposite party against the order of conviction is still pending. The xerox copy of the said judgment filed by the petitioner be kept in record.So far as the FIR lodged by the complainant/opposite party is concerned, the Officer-in-charge submitted final report on the ground that the allegation is false. In the meantime (before filing of final from) the complainant filed ICC No. 32 of 1993 in which after undertaking an enquiry under S. 202, Cr. P.C. learned S.D.J.M. on 20-9-1995 passed the impugned order taking cognizance of the offences under Ss. 341, 342, 294 and 352/34, IPC and directed to issue processes against the petitioners.