RAGHUNATH DAS Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This application under S. 482, Cr. P.C. has been filed challenging the order dated 9-2-2001 passed by the learned S.D.J.M., Bhadrak in G.R. Case No. 1276 of 1999 taking cognizance of offences under Sections 325 and 395 of the Penal Code in addition to offences under Sections 341, 232, 324, 427 and 34 of the Penal Code cognizance of which had been taken by order dated 10-6-2000.

(2.) The case of the petitioners before this Court is that on the basis of the information lodged by one Karunakar Das on 11-11-1999, investigation was taken up for offences punishable under Sections 324, 380, 364 and 34 of the Penal Code. The case of the prosecution is that on 10-11-1999 all the petitioners assaulted the family members of the informant, took away house-hold articles, kidnapped the sister and mother of the informant, respective wives of two other brothers and his son, namely, Rashmi-ranjan. On completion of investigation, charge-sheet was submitted for commission of offences under Sections 341, 323, 324, 427 and 34 of the Penal Code and the learned S.D.J.M. by his order dated 10-6-2000 took cognizance of the said offences. The further case as it appears from the impugned order is that on 17-11-2000 the informant filed an application alleging therein that the materials collected disclose commission of offence punishable under Section 395 of the Penal Code and despite availability of materials in respect of the said offence, charge-sheet has not been filed for the said offence and a prayer was made to take cognizance of the same. The said petition was entertained by the learned Magistrate and an inquiry under Section 202, Cr. P.C. was taken up. It is also alleged that on the basis of not only the materials collected during inquiry under Section 202, Cr. P.C. but also considering the materials collected during investigation by the police in the G.R. Case, the learned Magistrate passed the impugned order taking cognizance of offences under Sections 325 and 395 of the Penal Code in addition to other offences in respect of which cognizance had been taken on 10-6-2000.

(3.) Shri Nayak, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners has challenged the order on two grounds (1) The protest petition filed should have been treated as an independent complaint and the inquiry under Section 202, Cr. P.C. should have been done in the said complaint. Instead, the learned Magistrate entertained the petition in the G.R. Case and also conducted inquiry under Section 202, Cr. P.C. in the G.R. Case. (2) While dealing with the protest petition, the learned Magistrate could not have looked into the materials collected during investigation by the police in the G.R. Case and should have confined himself to the materials available during inquiry under Section 202, Cr. P.C.