SAROJ KUMAR RAY Vs. SANTILATA MALLICK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner assails the propriety or otherwise of the order dated 4-2-1999 passed by the Sessions Judge, Balasore in Criminal Revision No. 23 of 1998 setting aside the order dated 13-12-1997 passed by the S. D. J. M., Nilgiri dismissing ICC No. 14 of 1997 under Section 203 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

(2.) The facts stated hereinbelow would reveal that the case has a chequered career. It is alleged that the husband of the complainant-opposite party No. 1 was an accused in a homicidal case and the present petitioner was the police officer who was conducting investigation in the said case. In course of investigation the petitioner wanted to take the foot-prints of the said accused. According to the petitioner, to prevent him from doing so or proceeding against the said accused, the complainant-opposite party No. 1 Santilata Mallik, wife of the said accused, filed an FIR on July 18, 1995 inter alia alleging that the petitioner in the garb of investigation raped her on July 16, 1995. On the basis of the said FIR, Nilgiri P. S. Case No. 65 of 1995 was registered which was subsequently converted to G. R. Case No. 118 of 1995 in the Court of the S.D.J.M., Niligiri. After thorough investigation, police found that the entire allegations were false and fabricated and accordingly submitted final report on 23rd of December, 1995 which was received in Court on 4th of January, 1996 and notice was issued to the informant.

(3.) While the matter stood thus, it appears, the complainant-opposite party No. 1 filed a complaint petition before the S.D.J.M., Niligiri which was registered as ICC No. 2 of 1996 under Section 376, IPC read with Section 3 of the S.C.and S. T. (P. A.) Act, making the self-same allegations as made earlier. In view of the specific provisions of Section 3 of the S.C. and S. T. (P.A.) Act, 1989 (hereinafter called the '1989 Act'), the learned S.D.J.M. who lacked jurisdiction, did not entertain the said complaint petition. Thereafter on 8th of January, 1996 the said complainant again filed another complaint petition, with verbatim the same allegations as made in ICC No. 2 of 1996, before the learned Special Judge, Balasore. The said complaint filed before the Special Judge, Balasore was entertained and registered as Special Case No. 8 of 1996 under Section 376, IPC read with Section 3 of the S.C. and S.T. (P.A.) Act.