MALAYA KUMAR LENKA Vs. STATE OF ODISHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In fact, the petitioners by invoking inherent jurisdiction under Sec. 482 Cr.P.C. have questioned the legality and judicial propriety of the impugned order dtd. 23/9/2016 i.e.Annexure-1 passed in ICC Case No.259 of 2016 by the learned S.D.J.M., Panposh, Rourkela besides the sustainability of the criminal proceeding itself on various grounds.

(2.) Since the parties have raised similar grounds, both the applications have, therefore, been taken up together for disposal by a common order.

(3.) OP No.4 filed ICC Case No.465 of 2015 before the learned court below which was directed to be investigated upon in terms of Sec. 156(3) Cr.P.C. and accordingly, a case was registered vide G.R. Case No.1449 of 2015 which, however, resulted in submission of a closure report, where after, a protest petition was filed and the same was registered as ICC Case No.259 of 2016 and then, the learned counsel below, after recording the initial statement of its representative and conducting an enquiry as per Sec. 202 Cr.P.C. passed the order of cognizance under Annexure-1 in respect of offence punishable under Sec. 408/120-B/34 IPC and summoned the petitioners, which is being questioned at present.