MANOJ KUMAR TIWARI Vs. SANTOSH KUMAR PARIDA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the petitioner (accused -Manoj Kumar Tiwari, resident of Khariar, Dist: Nuapada) seeking to challenge an order dated 15.07.2008 passed in 1.C.C. Case No.83 of 2008, wherein the learned J.M.F.C.(R), Cuttack recorded his satisfaction that a prima facie case under Sections 323, 294, 394, 379 and 506 I.P.C. is made out against the accused -Manoj Kumar Tiwari (petitioner herein) and, accordingly, took cognizance of such offences and directed issue of process.

(2.) MR . G.K.Nayak, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is a native of Khariar in the district of Nuapada, where he was working as a Contractor under the opposite party, who was then working as Deputy Project Manager (Contract Engineer), O.C.C. Ltd., Lower India Spillway Project, Tikabali, PS: Khariar, Dist: Nuapada. It was submitted that the petitioner himself had filed 1.C.C. Case No.4 of 2008 before the J.M.F.C., Khariar and cognizance had been taken against the opposite party under Section 294/506 I.P.C. vide order dated 13.03.2008. Being aggrieved by the same, the opposite party had filed a criminal Revision i.e. CRLREV No.550 of 2008 before this Court and by order dated 29.04.2008, this Court was pleased to stay the N.B.W. issued for arrest of the opposite party.

(3.) THE learned counsel for the petitioner highlighted the fact that the entire story made out in the complaint is a fiction of imagination and the same would be proved from Annexure -4 which is a certificate obtained from the R.T.O., Raipur Region indicating that there is no such vehicle registered there in Chhattisgarh bearing the number as suggested by the informant. Apart from the above, the learned counsel for the petitioner (accused) submitted that the story that the informant was travelling between Bhubaneswar and Cuttack on the alleged date of occurrence is also purely false and he produced in the proceeding certain attendance sheets and remittance rolls to indicate that the opposite party -complainant could not have been present at Cuttack on the date as alleged and that the complaint filed against the present petitioner was pure and simple concocted. Further submission was advanced by the petitioner that under Section 202 Cr.P.C., the Magistrate was not competent to exercise jurisdiction and was mandatorily required to postpone the issue of process against the accused since the accused did not reside within the jurisdiction of the said court. Apart from the above, in view of the nature of the allegation made, it was asserted that the trial court i.e. the J.M.F.C.(R), Cuttack ought not to have taken cognizance in the complaint based on the purported evidence of the complainant and this was a fit case where the learned J.M.F.C. ought to have directed investigation into the allegation by the police.