MALIA ANNAPURNA Vs. MALIA BHAGAWAN RAO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE relevant facts giving rise to this revision may be briefly stated as follows The present Petitioner lodged the F.I.R. alleging that on 25 -6 -1955 at about 5 P.M. at village Upalada (within Ganjam district the opposite party high -handedly cut and removed a teak tree belonglng to her. On the basis of the F.I.R. the police registered G.R. Case No. 196 of 1985 against the opposite party under Sections 379 and 506, IPC. The Police after investigation submitted the final report No. 27 dated 31.10.1985 after giving notice of the same to the opposite party. 10 -12 -1985, after considering the final report and the other police papers the teamed S.D.J.M. accepted the final report. Subsequently on 9 -1 -1986 the present Petitioner making the very same allegations as in the FIR, filed the complaint petition against the opposite party in Ice No. 4 of 1986 and the Learned S.D.J.M. by his order dated 10 -1 -1986 took cognisance against, the opposite party under Sections 379 and 506, IPC. On a petition filed by the accused in the Complaint Case (opposite party) stating that the Complaint Case is not maintainable, the learned S.D.J.M. by his order dated 21 -7 -1986 discharged the accused under Section 245(2), Code of Criminal Procedure Being aggrieved by the said order of discharge, the complainant has preferred this revision.

(2.) THE learned Counsel for the Petitioner contended that the impugned order passed by the learned S.D.J.M. discharging the accused is not in accordance with the provisions of Section 245(2), Code of Criminal Procedure and therefore, the same is liable to be set aside.

(3.) THE learned Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that even the earlier order of the Magistrate dated 10 -12 -1985 accepting the final report and dropping the criminal proceeding is not in accordance with Jaw. No doubt the Police submitted the final report on 31 -10 -1985 after giving notice of the same to the informant (the present Petitioner) and the learned S.D.J.M. dropped the criminal proceeding in G.R. Case No. 196 of 1985. On a perusal of the order -sheet in the G.R. Case it is seen that the Magistrate has given no notice to the informant providing him an opportunity to be heard at the time of consideration of the final report. In Bhagwant Singh v. Commissioner of Police and Anr. : AIR 1985 S.C. 1285, cited by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner, the Supreme Court stressed the importance of giving such notice when it observed as follows: