DEEPAK MOHAPATRA Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD .

(2.) IN this application under Section 482, Cr.P.C. petitioner prays to quash the order of cognizance dated 15.12.1999 in G.R. Case No. 1515 of 1999.

(3.) PETITIONER was arrested in course of investigation and was released on bail as per the order of Court of Session. As against the order of cognizance petitioner filed a revision application registered as Criminal Revision No. 79 of 2000 and disposed of on 18.2.2002 by Addl. Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court No. 2), Bhubaneswar. Learned Addl. Sessions Judge rejected the prayer of the petitioner on the ground that the order taking cognizance is an interlocutory order. When petitioner advanced the contention regarding absence of a prima facie case in toto notwithstanding the observations of the Sessions Judge, this Court called for the LCR for perusal to find out if there does not exist a prima facie case for the offence under Section 498 -A, IPC. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that notwithstanding statement recorded under Section 161, Cr.P.C. of the opposite party No. 2 was available in the Case Diary, at her instance, her statement was recorded under Section 164, Cr.P.C. and on a comparison of both the statements there appears glaring contradictions to falsify the allegations made under Section 498 -A, IPC. On a perusal of the statement under Section 164, Cr.P.C. so also the statement under Section 161, Cr.P.C. this Court finds existence of a prima facie case for the offence under Section 498 -A, IPC. Descripancies and contradictions which are pointed out by the petitioner do not belie the allegations made to constitute the offence under Section 498 -A, IPC. Besides that, such a matter shall come for consideration at the time of trial and such descripancies are not so glaring that the criminal proceeding should be closedat its threshold. Thus, this Court is not inclined to exercise the inherent power under Section 482, Cr.P.C. to interfere with the order of cognizance.