LAWS(ORI)-2002-1-45

SANATAN SWAIN Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

Decided On January 07, 2002
Sanatan Swain Appellant
V/S
STATE OF ORISSA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONERS are the accused persons in I.C.C. No. 19 of 1998 of the Court of J.M.F:C., Kodala. They pray to invoke the inherent power and to quash the impugned order dated 3.12.1998 by which learned J.M.F.C. not only took cognizance of the offence Under Section 395, I.P.C. but also issued process against the petitioners in accordance with the provision Under Section 204, read with Section 87, Cr.P.C.

(2.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioners placed the fact in the following manner: One Lochan Parida, the brother of petitioner No. 1, was killed and on the report of his another brother namely, Biswanath Parida, Kabisuryanagar P.S. Case No. 141 of 1996 corresponding to G. R. Case No. 224 of 1996 was registered in the Court of J.M.F.C., Kodala forthe offences punishable Under Sections 302/307/34, I.P.C. read with Section 25 A and 27 of the Arms Act against one Hari Swain and some others. The complainant in the present case (I.C.C. No. 19 of 1998) is the wife of that Hari Swain.

(3.) LEARNED Counsel for the opposite party without disputing about existence of the two sessions cases, however, argued that the F.I.R. in G. R. Case No. 163 of 1997 prima facie made out a case Under Section 395, I.P.C. but that case was not only properly investigated by the Investigating Officer but also the accused persons were favoured by filing a Final Report. Under such facts and circumstance when the complainant and her witnesses, who are eye witnesses to the occurrence, made their statements in the enquiry Under Section 202, Cr.P.C. and the learned Magistrate on due consideration of the same has recorded his finding regarding existence of a prima facie case for the aforesaid offence, this Court should not interfere with that order of cognizance and accordingly the application Under Section 482, Cr.P.C. should be rejected. In the context of the nature and scope of enquiry Under Section 202, Cr.P.C. vis a vis the order under Sections 190 and 204, Cr.P.C. and the duty of the superior Courts in analysing the correctness of the order of cognizance, learned counsel for the opposite party relied on the cases of Trilok Singh and Ors., v. Satya Deo Tripathi, AIR 1979 Supreme Court 850; Hareram Satpathy v. Tikaram Agarwala and others, AIR 1978 Supreme Court 1568; Smt. Nagawwa v. Veeranna Shivalingappa Konjalgi, AIR 1976 Supreme Court 1947; Chandra Deo Singh v. Prokash Chandra Bose alias Chabi Bose and Anr., AIR 1963 Supreme Court 1430; and Nirmaljit Singh Hoon v. The State of West Bengal and others, AIR 1972 Supreme Court 2639.