KANAKALATA NATH Vs. PRAMOD KUMAR SAMANTRAY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this application under Section 482, Code of Criminal Procedure Petitioner challenges correctness of the order dated 10.8.1999 in I.C. Case No. 81 of 1999 of the Court of S.D.J.M. Bhubaneswar. Vide that order learned S.D.J.M. refused to take cognizance against the opposite party and dismissed the complaint on the ground of absence of a prima facie case.

(2.) ALLEGATION in the complaint and the statement of witnesses examined on behalf of the complainant in the inquiry under Section 202 Code of Criminal Procedure, is to the effect that complainant had lodged a report (ELR.) before the O.I.C at Balipatna P.S. and when the present opposite party did not take any steps against the accused persons in that case, the Petitioner went and reported the matter before the Superintendent of Police and as a reaction to that, as alleged, the opposite party, being the Officer in charge of Balipatna police station, called the Petitioner to the Police station and not only molested her but also assaulted her on the ground as to why she reported against him before the Superintendent of Police. During the course of inquiry two witnesses were examined by the complainant in addition to her own statement. She did not examine the concerned person who according to her had come and asked her to appear before the opposite party. For that reason, learned S.D.J.M. drew adverse inference against genuineness in the complaint case and that was one of the reasons to dismiss the complaint.

(3.) THOUGH the contention of the opposite party is a matter for ascertainment at the time of enquiry or trial, as the case may be, but the contention of the Petitioner has some force inasmuch as in the absence of relevant documents viz., the F.I.R., the date on which it was filed and the identity of the Home Guard and the Superintendent of Police, learned S.D.J.M. should not have proceeded with the presumption that the allegation is false. Though attempt to bring false criminal charge cannot be ruled out keeping in view the nature of duty performed by the opposite party but that cannot be the ground to give him a clean chit without conducting the enquiry properly.