SUBASH CHANDRA MOHAPATRA Vs. M.S. JAGGI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this revision the Petitioner has prayed that the order dated 23 -4 -1979 taking cognizance against him in case No. I.C.C. 116 of 1977 passed by the learned Sub -Divisional Magistrate, Cuttack should be quashed.

(2.) ON 1 -11 -1975 the opposite party filed a complaint petition in the Court of the learned S.D.J.M., Cuttack against the Petitioner and eleven others. The complainant (opposite party) inter alia alleged that the Petitioner had accepted him as a tenant in respect of "My Desire Restaurant" with effect from 5 -5 -1975, but on the night 7 -5 -1975 the Petitioner along with his associates dispossessed the opposite party from the tenanted premises and forcibly occupied the same. The opposite party sent First Information Report to the Police Station on the same night but the Police did not take any action. It is further alleged that several applications filed by the opposite party before the City Magistrate were also not duly processed. Accordingly the opposite party filed his complaint petition before the learned S.D.J.M., Cuttack and prayed that cognizance should be taken against the Petitioner and other accused persons and that documents, etc. in G.R. Case No. 980/75 should be called for proper appreciation of the evidence. On 1 -11 -1975 the Court posted the case to 12 -12 -1975 awaiting submission of police report. The police were also directed to submit a report regarding the stage at which the investigation was then pending. After several adjournments on 17 -6 -1976 the Court noted that the police had submitted a final report treating the case as mistake of fact. The case was directed to be put up on 12 -7 -1976 along with the case diary. Thereafter the case suffered many adjournments. On several dates either the opposite party was not present or he did not take any steps and on other dates the order's of the Court had not been complied with. On 3 -3 -1977 the Court decided that an inquiry should be held under Section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and it was further decided that another complaint case filed by the opposite party on 9 -9 -1976 was to be clubbed together with the present case. On 24 -6 -1977 the statement of the opposite party was recorded in part. On 30 -6 -1977 the opposite party was further examined in part. On 6 -7 -1977 the opposite party was again further examined in part. On 11 -7 -1977 the opposite party was further examined and the documentary evidence adduced by him were also marked. The case thereafter suffered several adjournments mostly on account of non receipt of documents called for from the police. It is seen that on several dates the opposite party himself was also absent on account of which the case had to be adjourned. On 23 -4 -1979 the learned S.D.J.M. passed the following order:

(3.) THE opposite party has further urged that he is entitled to the benefit of exclusion of time under Sub -section (1) of Section 470 of the Code. The said Sub -section is extracted hereunder: