TAPAN KUMAR RAY Vs. SUSIL KUMAR PRADHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Complainant is the petitioner and has invoked the inherent power of this Court under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, being aggrieved by the order of the Sessions Judge in Criminal Revision No. 85 of 1989 who by the said order has quashed the order of the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate taking cognisance under section 323/34, Indian Penal Code, and summoning the accused to stand trial.

(2.) The petitioner lodged a complaint in the Court of the Sub-divisional Judicial Magistrate, Bhadrak, against opposite party NO.1 and two others alleging that S.I. Shri Ratha Mallik came to the house of the petitioner and asked him and his brother Bula alias Rajkishore Ray and Bijaya Kishore Ray to come to the police station since they were wanted in the criminal cases instituted on account of trouble in village Kaupur. The petitioner and his brothers came to the police station and when they reached there the said S.I. put them inside the Hazat and locked them up. Later .in the day, two other persons were brought and kept inside the Hazat and sometime thereafter opposite party No.1 with A.S.I. Shri Sachidananda Panda arrived at the police station. Opposite party No.1 was the Superintendent of Police at Balasore. Said opposite party No. 1 started abusing the petitioners and directed the S.I. and A.S.I. to bring Rajkishore and abused them in filthy language. When Rajkishore protested, said opposite party No.1 asked the S.I. and A.S.I. to assault and pursuant to the said order, A.S.I. Sachidananda Panda assaulted. The Sub-Inspector of Police also gave poking blows. When the petitioner and the other inmates of the Hazat shouted, said opposite party No.1 directed the S.L and A.S.I. to assault to petitioner and also abused the petitioner in filthy language. The petitioner was injured on receiving kicks from the S.I. and A.S.I. Opposite party No.1 thereafter left the police station. When the petitioner was produced in the Court of the Sub- Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Bhadrak, in connection with P.S. Case Nos. 121, 122, 123 and 124 of 1989, he complained of ill-treatment and under the orders of the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate was examined by the Medical Officer of the hospital. On receiving the injury report and on being released on bail, the petitioner filed the complaint against opposite party No.1 and two other police officer.

(3.) The learned Magistrate held an inquiry under section 202, Code of Criminal Procedure, and in that proceeding two witnesses were examined on behalf of the petitioner. The Magistrate thereafter took cognisance under section 323134, Indian Penal Code, against opposite party No. I, the Superintendent of Police, the S.I. of Police and the A.S.I. of Police and summoned them for trial. Opposite party No.1 alone moved the learned Sessions Judge in revision. The learned Sessions Judge by the impugned order having quashed the order of the Magistrate so far as it relates to opposite party No.1, the Superintendent of Police, the petitioner has approached this Court.