DHABALESWAR PRADHAN Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS application under Section 482, Cr.P.C. has been filed by the petitioners with the prayer to quash the order of cognizance dated 3.'11.1997 in G.R. Case No. 528 of 1995 of the Court of Sub -divisional Judicial Magistrate, Jajpur. To determine the issues, it is not necessary to refer to the facts involved in the case because the contention of the parties centres round on a legal issue.

(2.) ON the basis of the First Information Report, lodged by one Subash Chandra Behera, P.S. Case No. 157 of 1995 was registered for various offences including the offence under Section 307/34, IPC Petitioners are named in the FIR. On completion of investigation, final form was filed enlisting two of the alleged culprits, viz., Hagu @ Prafulla Das and Nandu Ch. Das, as the accused persons. Therefore, charge -sheet was not submitted against the present petitioners. The Investigating Officer reported to the Court of SDJM, Jajpur regarding commission of various other offences including the offence under Section 307/34, IPC. Learned SDJM, Jajpur on perusal of the case diary passed order on 3.11.1997 taking cognizance of the offence as per the charge -sheet and directed to issue process to the charge -sheeted accused to also the petitioners on the ground of existence of a prima facie case. That order has been described as taking cognizance of the offence against the charge -sheeted accused and the present petitioners. On refusal to receive summons as reported by the Process Server on 3.12.2002 learned SDJM, Jajpur passed order to issue NBWA against the petitioners.

(3.) IN the case of Bhinga (supra) this Court has taken note of various decisions of the Apex Court including the ratio in the case of M/s. SWILL Ltd. (supra) and has held that : '.....On the other hand, referring to several other decisions of the Apex Court in the case of Raj Kishore Prasad (supra), the Apex Court has emphasised that in a case where the offence is exclusively triable by the Court of Session the role of committing Magistrate is that of a post office to commit a case on the basis of challan (charge -sheet) submitted by the investigating agency. At that stage, he has no scope to add to the list of accused. Similar view was expressed by the Apex Court in the case of Ranjit Singh (supra) and that was followed with approval by the Apex Court in the case of Kishori Singh (supra). Therefore, the scope of interference by the cognizance taking Magistrate in a case exclusively triable by the Court of Session is limited to the extent that he is to go by the charge -sheet, whereas in other case as propounded by the Apex Court in M/s. SWIL Ltd. the Magistrate has absolute jurisdiction.'