BIREN KUMAR SAHU Vs. BINODE BEHARI HASTI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONERS are the accused persons in I.C.C. No. 5 of 1995 of the Court of S.D.J.M., Deogarh. Opposite party is the complainant in that case. He filed the complaint petition alleging that the accused persons, who are the officers in Power Grid Corporation in its office at Rourkela, with the consent of the opposite party installed Tower Line on the lands of the opposite party with a promise to provide appropriate compensation for the trees which were cut and also promised to provide those timbers with timber transit permit. They cut the standing trees but did not take steps to provide the timber transit permit, as a result of which, petitioners sustained a loss of Rs. 22,000/ (i.e. 20,000 towards the value of the timber and 2,000 towards the emoluments of the watch man). It is further alleged that they did not pay the appropriate compensation of the trees and when demanded they threatened the opposite party with dire consequences and for initiating false case against him. It is alleged by the opposite party that besides the damage to the property and criminal intimidation, he was cheated by the aforesaid two petitioners. After receipt of the complaint, learned S.D.J.M. recorded the initial statement of the opposite party and thereafter made enquiry Under Section 202, Cr.P.C. During that stage, petitioner examined one witness, viz., Maguni Luhura. Upon perusal of the said statements, on 30.3.1995, learned S.D.J.M. took cognizance of the offence under Sections 418/420/34, IPC and issued process against the petitioners. After receipt of the notice, petitioners did not appear in the Court below on 12.5.1995 and they filed the present application Under Section 482, Cr.P.C. on 10.5.1995 with a prayer to quash the I.C.C. Case No. 5 of 1995 on, the ground that a prima facie case is not made out against them and that on false and frivolous allegations opposite party brought that complaint case against them though the compensation has already been paid. It is further stated by the petitioner that the notice which was served on them was defective inasmuch as in that notice there was no mention as to whether the petitioners have to appear through counsel or in the person.

(2.) AFTER receipt of the notice, the opposite party did not appear to contest this case. So the petitioner was alone heard.

(3.) MR . Jagabandhu Sahoo, learned counsel for the petitioners argued that on the face of the aforesaid documents (filed on 5.1.2000) it can be safely concluded that there is total absence of a prima facie case against the petitioner. Notwithstanding the above observation relating to non consideration of such documents, for the sake of discussion, they are taken up.