PRASANTA KUMAR PRADHAN Vs. STATE OF ODISHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. Das, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Nanda, learned Additional Government Advocate through video conferencing mode.

(2.) According to Mr. Das, the petitioner who happens to be informant in Purushottampur P.S. Case No. 446 of 2021 registered for commission of offences under Sections 147, 148, 294, 506, 302 and 149 I.P.C. is aggrieved by the manner in which investigation is being conducted by the Investigating Officer.

(3.) Mr. Nanda relying on the decisions of the Supreme Court in the cases of Sakiri Vasu v. State of U.P. and others reported in (2008) 2 SCC 409 and Sudhir Bhaskar Rao Tambe v. Hemant Yashwant Dhage and others reported in (2016) 6 SCC 277 submits that instead of approaching the jurisdictional Magistrate under Section 156(3), Cr.P.C., the petitioner has unnecessarily rushed to this Court. He further submits that in the aforesaid decision, the Supreme Court has made it clear that when after registering the F.I.R., if no proper investigation is made, it would be open to the aggrieved person to file an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. before the learned Jurisdictional Magistrate and if such an application is filed, appropriate direction can be issued by the learned Magistrate. The learned Magistrate can also recommend change of Investigating Officer so that the proper investigation can be done.