DEBAKI NAIK Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BOTH the cases being analogous were heard together and are disposed of by this common order.

(2.) IN Criminal Revision No. 445 of 1993 the petitioner Debaki Naik seeks to challenge the validity of the order dated 25.5.1993 of the Sub divisional Judicial Magistrate, Sundargarh in G.R. Case No. 268 of 1992 taking cognizance of the offence punishable Under Section 308/34 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as 'the IPC). Criminal Misc. Case No. 1325 of 1994 has been filed Under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure by Mitrabhanu Naik, husband of Debaki Naik, (petitioner in Crl. Revision No. 445 of 1993) challenging the self same order of the learned Magistrate.

(3.) THE limited question that arises for consideration is whether the learned Magistrate was justified in taking cognizance of the offence punishable Under Section 308/34, IPC. On a close and careful perusal of the materials available on record, it would appear that Sadar P.S. Case Nos. 40 of 1992 and 51 of 1992 arose out of one incident which occurred on 6.6.1992 in the house of Debaki Naik. In the former case which was registered on the basis of the FIR lodged by her, the gravamen of the allegation is that Rabiratna Naik committed criminal house trespass into her house and when he tried to commit rape on her, in order to save herself from being molested, she assaulted him by the knife. In the second case, i.e. Sadar P.S. Case No. 51 of 1992 investigation proceeded to find out whether the injuries sustained by Rabiratna Naik were inflicted only by Debaki Naik or by herself and her husband, and in the circumstances, she as well as her husband could get protection under any of the provisions contained in Chapter IV of IPC. It is relevant to state here that as a matter of fact the Investigating Officer in the case diary of Sadar P.S. Case No. 51 of 1992 has remarked that that case is the counter case of Sadar P.S. Case No. 49 of 1992. For the aforesaid reasons, the learned Magistrate rightly on the facts and circumstances did not accept the final report and has taken cognizance of the offence Under Section 308/34, IPC and directed issuance of summons to Debaki Naik and Mitrabhanu Naik. I am, therefore, not inclined to interfere with the order dated 25.5.1993 passed in G.R. Case No. 268 of 1992.