PRASANT MALLICK Vs. STATE OF ODISHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Instant application under Sec. 482 Cr.P.C. is filed by the petitioner challenging the legality and judicial propriety of the impugned order of cognizance dtd. 13/9/2013 passed in C.T. Case No.360 of 2013 by the learned S.D.J.M., Athagarh on the grounds inter alia that the offence for which he has been charge sheeted is not at all made out even after considering the FIR and materials on record.

(2.) In fact, an FIR was lodged by the informant, namely, O.P.No.2 alleging therein that the petitioner, while was the Managing Director of the named company, harassed and threatened him to submit resignation, as a result of which, he had to succumb and resign. It has been alleged therein that on 27/6/2013, the petitioner abused O.P.No.2 in vulgar language and threatened him with dire consequences, if resignation was not tendered. On such lodging of FIR, Khuntuni P.S. Case No. 59(3) dtd. 5/7/2013 was registered under Sec. (s) 294 and 506 IPC. After investigation was concluded, charge sheet only under Sec. 506 IPC was submitted against the petitioner. Thereafter, the learned court below took cognizance of the offence and consequently, passed the impugned order dtd. 13/9/2013 i.e. Annexure-3.

(3.) Heard Mr. Yeeshan Mohanty, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Mr. D.R. Parida, learned ASC for the State. None represents O.P.No.2.