BAIDHAR PANI Vs. JAGANNATH PATRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This application under Section 482, Cr.P.C. is disposed of at the stage of admission after hearing argument at length from both the parties.

(2.) Petitioners have prayed to quash the order of cognizance under Section 448, I.P.C. in I.C.C. No. 128 of 2000 of the Court of S.D.J.M., Kendrapara on the ground that petitioner No. 1 being a tenant under the complainant/opposite party, a prosecution for criminal trespass as defined in Section 441, I.P.C. (Orissa Amendment) and punishable under Section 448, I.P.C. is not made out in view of the ratio of this Court in the case of Akapati Bhaskar Patra v. Trinath Sahu and another, (2001) 21 OCR-15 read with the decision in the case of Akapati Bhaskar Patra v. Trinath Sahu and another, (2002) 23 OCR 115.

(3.) It is on the basis of a reference made by Hon'ble P.C. Naik, J. (as his Lordship then was) that the Division Bench examined the position of law to categorise the persons who are liable to be prosecuted for the offence under Section 448, IPC on the basis of Orissa Amendment of Section 441, IPC and who are those persons not liable to be proceeded against with criminal prosecution. In paragraph 12 of the Judgment the Division Bench summed up the position of law. That has been quoted by learned Single Judge in the latter case and in a case of similar nature which is before this Court relating to a tenant not vacating the premises even after the notice, it was directed not to proceed against him under Section 448, I.P.C. Paragraph 12 of the Division Bench decision reads as hereunder :