MAHIMA MAHIMANANDA MISHRA Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (the CodeT. for short) has been filed for quashing the further investigation in Paradeep P.S. Case No. 162 of 1995, corresponding to G.R. Case No. 336 of 1998 pending in the Court of the learned Judicial Magistrate. First Class (P), Kujang.

(2.) The case of the petitioners is that petitioner No. 1 is the Managing Director of Orissa Stevedores Limited. Petitioner No. 2 is one of the Directors of the said Company and petitioner No. 3 is a Senior Executive working in the said Company. One Soumesh Chakravarty lodged FIR in Paradeep P.S. on 13-7 -1995 stating that some unknown persons kidnapped one P.C, Das, opposite party No. 2. who is an Executive of M/s, J.M, Baxi and Co. while they were staying in Hotel Golden Anchor. Paradeep, in Room No. 104. On the basis of the said FIR, Paradeep P.S. Case No. 162/95 was registered for offences alleged to have been committed under Sections 364/34. IPC and the corresponding G.R. Case No. 336 of 1995 was also registered in the Court of the learned Judicial Magistrate. First Class (TJMFC for short) at Kujang. After investigation, final report was submitted in the said case stating that there is no clue. The informant was given notice to file objection and despite several adjournments, since no objection was filed, the final report was accepted by the Court. After acceptance of the final report it has been re-opened again for further investigation without obtaining permission of the Court and such further investigation is under challenge before this Court.

(3.) Mr. Bijan Ray, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioners, submitted that one AK. Sarangi who was working as Superintendent of Police, Jagatsinghpur, from 14-4-1995 to 20-7- 1995 is instrumental in initiating further investigation into the matter maliciously and purposefully to harass the petitioners. This submission of Mr. Ray was vehemently opposed by the learned Additional Standing Counsel Mr. Pradhan. In course of argument both the parties agreed that the only question of law that is required to be determined is as to whether for the purpose of further investigation under Section 173(8) of the Code, permission of the learned Magistrate is required or not. Admittedly in the present case no permission has been obtained from the learned Magistrate while taking up further investigation or reopening the case for the purpose of further investigation. Before deciding the question as to whether permission is required or not, it is necessary to look into the background of the case and orders passed by the learned Magistrate.