LAWS(ORI)-2004-10-30

CHANDRA SEKHAR @ CHAGULU DAS Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

Decided On October 15, 2004
Chandra Sekhar @ Chagulu Das Appellant
V/S
STATE OF ORISSA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners in the present application have prayed for quashing of the cognizance taken against them by the learned J.M.F.C., Soro in ICC No.93 of 2002.

(2.) OPPOSITE party No.2 filed a complaint bearing ICC No.93 of 2002 alleging that petitioner No.1 with the help of petitioner Nos.2 to 4 kidnapped her from the house of her brother -in -law Gadadhar Mohanty at village Gabdastapur and thereafter ravished her for several days keeping her confined at the point of bhujali in the house of his relative situated in a different village. She also alleged that after ravishing her for several days, petitioner No.1 left her near her parental village Podadiha, threatening her with dire consequences if she discloses about the kidnap and rape etc. The learned J.M.F.C. forwarded the complaint petition under Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C. to the Officer in -charge, Soro Police Station for treating the same as an F.I.R. and for conducting investigation into the allegations. The Officer -in -charge on receipt of the complaint petition and communication from the J.M.F.C., Soro registered P.S. Case No.5 of 2003 and directed one S.I. of the Police Station to undertake investigation. The said S.I. conducted investigation and submitted charge -sheet under Sections 493 and 506, IPC only against petitioner No.1 Learned J.M.F.C., however, after perusing the materials available in the case diary, felt that prima facie case for the offences under Sections 366, 493, 376, 506/109, IPC is available against all the four petitioners. He, therefore, took cognizance of those offences against all the petitioners and directed issue of N.B.Ws. Dissatisfied with the said order of cognizance, the petitioners have filed this application for quashing the cognizance taken against them.

(3.) MR B. N. Mohanty, learned counsel for opposite party No.2, on the other hand, contends that there are clear allegations in the statements of opposite party No.2 and other witnesses examined by the I.O. to implicate all the petitioners in the offences under Sections 366, 376, 493, 506/109, IPC.