(1.) Both the applications under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure have been filed challenging the order dated 23-2-2001 passed by the learned S.D.J.M., Bhubaneswar in I.C.C. No. 65 of 2001 directing the I.I.C. Lingaraj Police Station to register a case and investigate into the allegations contained in the complaint. Criminal Misc. No. 4506 of 2001 has been filed by accused Laxmidhar Das, whereas Criminal Misc. Case No. 3559 of 2001 has been filed by four other accused persons.
(2.) Case of the complainant is that she is the mother of one Saraswati Behara (since deceased) who was given marriage to accused Laxmidhar Das on 6-7-1999 as per Hindu rites. At the time of marriage presentations were given to the tune of rupees three lakhs. The deceased was serving in the office of the Chief Engineer, Design and Planning at Secha Sadan and accused Laxmidhar Das was serving as Textile Engineer in the Century Textile Mills at Worli, Mumbai. On 12-8-2000 the deceased went to the place of living of accused Laxmidhar along with her sister who stayed there for two/three days. During her stay she noticed accused Laxmidhar Das had relationship with another woman namely Rakhi. There are several allegations which have been made in the complaint with regard to role played by Laxmidhar and said Rakhi in taking away the ornaments belonging to the deceased. Two months after, the deceased came back to Bhubneswar and narrated her sufferings before the complainant and by that time she was pregnant. Though accused Laxmidhar was requested to come for delivery at least 15 days prior to the expected date, he came on 3-2-2001. When the deceased had labour pain she wanted to be removed to hospital but accused Laxmidhar demanded rupees eight thousand which was also paid. On the very same day at about 12 O'clock in the mid night sister of the deceased saw accused Laxmidhar giving a glass of milk and after taking said milk (he deceased felt chocked and became unconscious. Finding her health to be serious blood transfusion was advised and then she went on sinking and was saying in a feeble voice that she was given poison in the milk and later on she died. On these allegations apart from other allegations made in the complaint, the complaint was filed for commission of offences under Sections 302/498-A and 120-B of the Penal Code read with Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. After receipt of the complaint learned S.D.J.M. in the impugned order directed the I.I.C. Lingaraj Police Station to register a case and investigate into the allegations in exercise of powers under Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C.
(3.) Shri Sen, learned counsel appearing in both the cases submitted that in a com plaint case where the offence alleged is triable by a Court of Sessions the learned Magistrate has no jurisdiction to exercise power under Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C. and direct the police to register a case and investigate into the allegations made in the complaint. In support of his contention learned counsel relied upon a decision of the Apex Court in the case of Rosy v. State of Kerala, reported in (2000) 18 OCR (SC) 490 : (2000 Cri LJ 930). None appeared for the opposite parties at the time of hearing of the applicants.