MRUTYUNJAYA NARAYAN PANDA Vs. SNEHALATA PANDA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application under section 482, Cr. P.C. by the accused in I.C.C. Case No. 179 of 1991 in the court of Sub-divisional Judicial Magistrate, Khurda - Cognizance has been taken under section 498A, I.P.C. and section 4 of the Dowery Prohibition Act on that basis of complaint by the wife. Process has been issued and, thereafter, non-bailable warrant of arrest has been issued against the accused to enforce his appearance in court.

(2.) Mr. Bijan Ray, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that Khurda Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint to take cognizance in view of section 177, Cr. P.C. Mr. Ray has relied upon a decision reported in Narumal v. State of Bombay. On the other hand, Mr. Y.S.N. Murty submitted that this decision has been distinguished by the Supreme Court in the decision reported in Nasiruddin Khan v. State of Bihar and cognizance ought not to be quashed as prayed for. There is also another decision reported in Smt. Raj Kumari Vijh. v. Dev. Raj Vijh which may be of some assistance.

(3.) As I find, this question was never raised before the trial court at any stage by the petitioner till today. It is desirable that at the time of framing charge (in case such question is raised) trial court shall consider the question before deciding to frame charge. Accordingly, at this stage I am not inclined to consider whether the cognizance shall be quashed.