UMESH CHANDRA DALAI ALIAS SATU Vs. PRATIVA SAHANI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed seeking to quash the order dated 30.4.2003 passed by the S.D.J.M., Berhampur in ICC No.86 of 2002. The impugned order reveals that after perusing the complaint petition, the initial statement of the complainant and the statements of three witnesses examined under Section 202 CrPC and being prima facie satisfied that materials were available with regard to commission of offences under Sections 498 -A/304 -B/506/34 IPC and under Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, the S.D.J.M. took cognizance of the said offences.

(2.) MR . Misra, learned counsel for the petitioners, forcefully submitted that the cause of action, if any, for initiating the aforesaid criminal proceeding allegedly had taken place at Chenai and as such the S.D.J.M., Berhamur lacked initial jurisdiction to take cognizance of the offences. It was also submitted that on the basis of the same allegation, on an earlier complaint petition, Chellai Mudain P.S. Crime No.2169 of 2001 was registered at Chenai and the investigation into the said case is pending by Chenai Police. I was emphatically submitted that for the self -same incident, opposite party No.1 has fraudulently filed the present complaint petition and the learned S.D.J.M., Berhampur without appreciating the true facts has mechanically taken cognizance of the offenses directing to proceed against the petitioners.

(3.) IN consonance with Section 190 CrPC, a Magistrate upon receiving a complaint of facts which constitute an offence and after being prima facie satisfied that materials are available to take cognizance of the offences alleged, may take cognisance of the offence. A perusal of the impugned order clearly reveals that the learned Magistrate on perusal of the complaint petition, and other materials as stated above was prima facie satisfied and took cognizance of the offences alleged in the case. I do not find any infirmity or illegality in the impugned order and decline to interfere with the same.