ROOP KUMAR NAIK Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners have filed this application challenging the order dated 29.10.2003 passed by the learned S.D.J.M., Bolangir in G.R. Case No. 399 of 2003 arising out of Bolangir P.S. Case No. 186 of 2003 taking cognizance for offences under Sections 341/323/34 IPC. Mr. A.K. Choudhury, learned counsel for the petitioners states that the petitioner No. 1 has filed P.S. Case No. 185 of 2003 under Sections 341/323/294, IPC against the Santanu Kumar Naik (Raja) of Rugudipada, Town P.S., Bolangir and while the said application was pending for investigation, to counter the same, the present P.S. Case No. 186 of 2003 has been filed against the petitioners by Santanu Kumar Naik.

(2.) Mr. Choudhury, learned counsel for the petitioners relying upon the judgments of the apex Court , T.T. Antony v. State of Kerala and others and, 2001 21 OCR 235, Sitanshu Shekhar Choudhury v. State of Orissa, 2005 2 OrissaLR 165 urged that when two First Information Reports have been lodged in the police station against each other in connection with the same set of facts and incidents, the police has to act on the basis of the information received first, as the same is called as the First Information Report and any other information given to the Officer-in-charge of the Police Station subsequently cannot be termed as First Information Report. Therefore, there cannot be two First Information Reports for the same incidents. Accordingly, the First Information Report lodged by the petitioner by Roop Kumar Naik registered as P.S. Case No. 185 of 2003 under Sections 341/323/294 IPC against Santanu Kumar Naik has to be acted upon instead of proceeding with the subsequent First Information Report lodged by Sri Santanu Kumar Naik against the petitioners registered as P.S. Case No. 186 of 2003, corresponding to G.R. Case No. 399 of 2003 under Sections 341/323/34 IPC pending before the learned S.D.J.M., Bolangir. He further relying upon the case of State of Haryana v. Bhajanlal and others, 1992 AIR(SC) 604 urged that Clause 7 of paragraph-102, it is stated where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge, in that case, this Court can interfere under Section 482, of the Cr.P.C. or under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, when police transgress its statutory power of investigation, this Court in appropriate cases can interfere with the investigation to prevent abuse of the process of the Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice.

(3.) Relying upon the judgment of the apex Court in Bhajan Lal , the subsequent F.I.R. lodged and registered as P.S. Case No. 186 of 2003 by Santanu Kumar Nayak basing upon which the criminal proceeding is maliciously instituted with ulterior motive for creating vengeance on the petitioners with a view to spite them due to personal grudge, in that case in exercise of power under Section 482, Cr.P.C. this Court hereby interferes with the investigation when police transgresses its statutory power in order to prevent abuse of the process of the Court and to secure ends of justice. Therefore, while declining to interfere with the impugned order of taking cognizance against the petitioners, I am of the view that the police has to act on the basis of the FIR lodged and registered as P.S. Case No. 185 of 2003 as the same is in connection with the same set of facts and incidents and I direct accordingly. With the aforesaid observation and direction, the CRLMC is disposed of. Since the G.R. Case is of the year 2003, the learned Magistrate shall do well to conclude the same six months from the date of production of the certified copy of this order.