NAMITA BOSE Vs. DEEPAK KUMAR BOSE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD .

(2.) PETITIONER 's move to sustain a second complaint on the self same allegations having been turned down by learned S. D. J. M. Cuttack in his order on 5. 1. 1995 in I. C. C. No. 95 of 1994 and which was maintained by learned First Additional Sessions Judge, Cuttack in his order dated 29. 3. 1995 in Criminal Revision No. 29 of 1995, she has approached this Court for legal remedy seeking invocation of inherent power Under Section 482, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short 'the Code').

(3.) RELYING on the ratio in the cases of State of Rajasthan v. Aruna Devi and Ors.: (1995) 8 OCR (SC) 267, Pramath Nath Talukdar etc. v. Saroj Ranjan Sarkar: AIR 1962 Supreme Court 876 and Mappillaisami Thevar and Ors. v. Muthuswamy Iyer:AIR 1949 Madras 76 learned counsel for the petitioner argues that there being no bar for entertaining a second complaint, the impugned orders are bad in law and is liable to be set aside with a direction from this Court to the S. D. J. M. to proceed with the complaint case. He further argues that the custody of the aforesaid 'Stridhana' of the petitioner in the hands of the opposite party amounts to entrustment and non return of the same other clearly disclose offences Under Section 406 of Indian Penal Code (in short, 'IPC'). In that context he refers to the case of Pratibha Rani v. Suraj Kumar and Anr.: AIR 1985 SC 628.