AKSHAYA KUMAR SWAIN Vs. DOLAGOBINDA SWAIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner assails the order dated 27.05.2004 passed by the learned J.M.F.C, Kendrapara in I.C.C. case No.15 of 1999 rejecting the petition filed by the petitioner on 23.08.2002 in Annexure-2 to incorporate the ages of the accused persons in the complaint petition under Annexure-1 dated 25.01.1999, which has been confirmed by the learned Additional District & Sessions Judge, Kendrapara by order dated 26.7.2004 in Criminal Revision petition No.16 of 2004 under Annexure-4.

(2.) The petitioner s case in nut-shell is that, he being the complainant, filed I.C.C. Case No.15 of 1999 in the court of learned S.D.J.M., Kendrapara against the opposite parties alleging commission of offences under Sections 323/294/147/379/506 read with Section 34 I.P.C., basing upon which the learned S.D.J.M., Kendrapara took cognizance of the offence after examining the complainant on oath. After the cognizance of the offence was taken, the learned S.D.J.M. transferred the case to the court of learned J.M.F.C., Kendrapara. While the case was pending before the learned J.M.F.C., Kendrapara, a petition under Annexure-2 was filed seeking for incorporation of ages of the accused persons in the complaint petition, which is necessary for adjudication. The accused-opposite parties after being released on bail, objected to the said petition filed by the complainant. By order dated 27.05.2004 under Annexure-3, learned J.M.F.C. rejected the prayer of the complainant stating that there is no specific provision in the Code of Criminal Procedure for amendment of a complaint petition and therefore, the petition filed on behalf of the complainant to add the ages of the accused persons in the complaint petition is devoid of merit. Thereafter the complainant filed Criminal Revision No.16 of 2004 before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kendrapara, who by order dated 26.7.2004 rejected the revision petition with the observation that the order of the Magistrate did not suffer from any infirmity and by rejection of such petition, no right of the party was decided nor the case was disposed of finally. He further observed that as the order was interlocutory in nature, the revision petition was not maintainable.

(3.) With this backdrop, the petitioner has filed this application invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. with a prayer to quash the orders passed by the learned J.M.F.C. and learned Additional District & Sessions Judge, Kenerapara vide Annexures-3 & 4 respectively and has sought for direction to incorporate the ages of the accused persons in complaint petition in exercise of inherent power of this Court.