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 opp. party No. 1 and two others alleging that S. I. Sri Rath Malik came to the house of the petitioner and asked him and his brothers Bula alias Rajkishore Ray and Bijiya 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 opp. party No. 1 with ASI Shri Sachidananda Panda arrived at the police station. Opp. party No. 1 was the Superintendent of Police at Balasore. Said opp. party No. 1 started abusing the petitioners and directed the SI and ASI to bring Rajkishore and abused them in filthy language. When Rajkishore protested, said opp. party No. 1 asked the SI and ASI to assault and pursuant to the said order, ASI Sacbidananda Panda assaulted. The Sub -Inspector of Police also gave poking blows. When the petitioner and the other inmates of the Hazat shouted, said opp. party No. 1 directed the SI and ASI to assault to petitioner and also abused the petitioner in filthy language, The petitioner was injured on receiving kicks from the SI and ASI. Opp 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 PS Case Nos. -121, 122, 123 and 124 of 1989, he romplained 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 opp. party 'No, 1 and two other police officers.

(3.) MR . Mohapatra,. the learned counsel for the petitioner, contends that the Sessions judge committed gross error and exceeded his jurisdiction in exercising his power of revision by threadbare discussing the evidence on record and interfering with the satisfaction of the Magistrate and his order taking cognisance of the offence and such an order has caused gross miscarriage of justice and, therefore, cannot be sustained. On examining the impugned order of the learned Sessions Judge ! find ample force in the contention of Mr. Mohapatra, but on the view of the fact that on -examining the materials on record, as ! do not find a prima facie case against the Superintendent of Police (opp. party No 1) Under Section 323, Indian Penal Code, I decline to interfere with the impugned order.