GAYADHAR BALA Vs. TILOTTAMA BALA AND BALARAM DAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner files the certified copy of the order sheet dated 13.5.1997 in I.C.C. No. 465 of 1994 of the Court of S.D.J.M., Bhadrak so also the initial statement of the complainant along with a note of submission.

(2.) PETITIONER challenges order dated 21.7.1998 of the learned S.D.J.M. when petitioner's application to recall the order of cognizance for the offence Under Section 316, I.P.C. was refused. Heard further argument. This application Under Section 482., Cr. P.C. is disposed of at the stage of hearing on admission after hearing at length learned counsel for both the parties.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner states that on the basis of an absurd allegation which is infested with unexplained delay, the complainant opp. party initiated I. C. C. No. 465 of 1994 complaining committing of the offence Under Sections 498A and 316, I.P.C. by the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner after placing the contents in the complaint, initial statement of the complainant and the statements of the witnesses recorded in the enquiry Under Section 202, Cr.P.C. states that the aforesaid allegation is not creditworthy to take any action whatsoever much less an order of cognizance. Learned counsel for the opposite party complainant, on the other hand, argues that the offence Under Section 316, I.P.C. is punishable with imprisonment for 10 years, therefore, Section 468, Cr.P.C. does not prohibit taking of cognizance of that offence on the ground of delay. He further states that a prima facie case is well made out against the petitioner and opposite party No. 2 for the offence Under Section 316, I.P.C. Accordingly, he defends the impugned order.