ROHIT KUMAR THAT Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This application under Section 482, Cr. P.C. has been filed by the petitioner seeking quashing of the order dated 12-5-2004 passed by the learned S.D.J.M. Dhenkanal in I.C.C. No. 129 of 2002 issuing process against the petitioner as well as for quashing of the said complaint case. On 12-7-2002, one Manoj Kumar Moharana lodged an FIR making allegation of commission of offence under Sections 341/323/294, IPC against one Bishnu Moharana which was registered under the said sections of the Indian Penal Code. The petitioner was the Investigating Officer, who was posted as Officer-in-Charge of Motanga Police Station. In order to apprehend the said accused Bishnu Moharana, he went to the house of the opp. party No. 2 on the alleged date of occurrence and searched for him. It is the case of the petitioner that the opp. party No. 2 and his family members did not co-operate with him and rather, tried to misbehave with the petitioner and other personnel accompanying him. The opp. party No. 2 lodged the complaint petition being I.C.C. No. 129 of 2002 before the learned S.D.J.M., Dhenkanal on 29-9-2002 against the petitioner as accused alleging commission of offence under Sections 294/323/427/448/457/500/504/34, IPC. In the complaint petition, it was alleged by the complainant opp. party No. 2 that on 22-9-2002 at about mid-night, the accused along with 4 to 5 persons entered inside the boundary of the house of the complainant and knocked the door uttering abusive language as mentioned in the complaint petition. On the complainant asking them regarding their identity, they did not disclose their names and identity. On the other hand, the accused persons abused the complainant. Apprehending danger to the life and property, the complainant did not open the entrance door of his house. Thereafter, the accused along with others broke upon the entrance door of the house of the complainant and entered inside his house and searched for his son, namely, Bishnu Moharana. The complainant and his wife told the accused persons that their son is staying at Dhenkanal. Being vexed with the reply, the petitioner accused pushed the complainant as a consequence of which he fell down on the ground and thereafter the petitioner pulled his wife by holding her blouse in one hand and the blouse of his wife was torn and her modesty was outraged. It has been further stated in the complaint petition that at that point of time, neither the accused No. 1 nor the unknown accused persons were in their uniform. The petitioner-accused also broke one television set of the complainant by throwing the same from its stand thereby causing a loss of Rs. 11,999/- to the complainant. Entering into the house of the complainant forcibly cannot be construed to be a part of the duty of the accused-petitioner.

(2.) After recording the initial deposition, the learned Court below directed an enquiry under Section 202, Cr. P.C. Thereupon, an enquiry under Section 202, Cr. P.C. was conducted. The complainant produced one witness during such enquiry. The learned S.D.J.M. on 12-5-2004 recorded an order issuing process as follows:

(3.) In the initial deposition, the complainant has not stated anything with regard to the offence of out-raging the modesty of his wife or the mis-behaviour of the petitioner as alleged in the complaint petition. The wife of the complainant examined during the enquiry under Section 202, Cr. P.C. corroborated the statement of the complainant.