SOLEMAN EKKA Vs. SATYABHAMA PANDA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These three applications are interlinked as they have a common genesis on a complaint filed by Smt. Satyabhama Panda, opposite party in each of the cases registered as I.C.C. No. 22 of 1994 before learned Subdivisional Judicial Magistrate, Khurda. According to Satyabhama, petitioner Soleman acted in an illegal manner in arresting her husband Dasarathi Panda in order to satisfy the ego of petitioners Prafulla Chandra and Ramakanta, who were inimically disposed towards her, and Dasarathi. Allegations of Satyabhama were that while accused-petitioner Soleman was effecting arrest, he misbehaved with her and thereby committed an offence punishable under section 354, I.P.C. and since he forcibly took away Dasrathi he committed an offence punishable under section 365, I.P.C.

(2.) On the basis of complaint filed, cognizance has been taken by the learned S.D.J.M., Khurda of offences punishable under sections 354/365 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short, 'I.P.C.') by order dated 2.2.1994. Learned S.D.J.M. expressed a view that though the petitioner Soleman was working as Sub-Inspector of Police, Banki Police Station, he was not given protection under section 197, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short, 'Cr. P.C.') as he had not committed the offences in course of his duty.

(3.) Mr. R.N. Mohanty, learned counsel for the petitioner in each of the cases submitted that with a view to harass the petitioners, false case has been foisted by Satyabhama. Strong reliance is placed on the first information report lodged by petitioner Ramakanta at Banki Police Station, which is subject-matter of adjudication in G.R. Case No. 15 of 1994 in the court of learned S.D.J.M., Banki. Dasarathi, the husband of Satyabhama is the accused in the said case. He was arrested on 30.1.1994 at 9.30 p.m. and was produced in court on 31.1.1994. He was also later on released on bail. With reference to the order passed by the learned S.D.J.M., Banki on 31.1.l994, it is submitted that Dasarathi did not complain of any illtreatment by Police and even did not make a statement that he was illegally arrested by Soleman. With reference to the statements in the complaint petition, the initial statement of Satyabhama and the statement of witnesses, it is submitted that falsehood is writ large. This according to Mr. Mohanty, learned counsel for petitioners is sufficient to show that Satyabhama has not come to Court with clean hands, and continuance of the proceeding would be sheer abuse of process of Court.