SASANKA ALIAS SUSANTA KARMAKAR Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short, 'Cr.P.C.') for quashing of the cognizance order passed by the learned S.D.J.M. (S), Cuttack in G.R.Case No. 1522 of 1999. Basing on an F.I.R. lodged by opp. party No. 2, Lalbag, P.S.Case No. 214 of 1999 was registered and after investigation in that case charge sheet was submitted for offences under Sections 436, 294, 506, 427, 379, 323 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code (in short, 'I.P.C.'). On perusing the charge sheet and the materials produced by the prosecution learned S.D.J.M. (S), Cuttack by order dated 6.5.2002 took cognizance of the above noted offences and directed issue of process against the petitioners. The present application has been filed for quashing the said order of cognizance.

(2.) THE first submission of Mr. R.K. Nayak, learned counsel for the petitioner is that the materials produced by the prosecution do not reveal prima facie case for the offences under Sections 436, 294, 506, 427, 379, 323/34, IPC, but the learned S.D.J.M. (S), Cuttack without applying his mind mechanically took cognizance of the offences. His second submission is that the alleged incident arose out of a land dispute between the parties but that civil dispute has now been resolved between them and a compromise decree has also been passed in T.S.No. 341 of 1999 by the learned Civil Judge (S.D.), 1st Court, Cuttack and in terms of that compromise, the parties desire discontinuance of G.R.Case No. 1522 of 1999. Learned counsel submits that in that background continuance of G.R.Case No. 1522 of 1999 of the Court of learned S.D.J.M. (S), Cuttack will be abuse of process of the Court and will unnecessarily cause rapture in the cordial relation now prevailing between the parties. He submits that in the best interest of every one the impugned order of cognizance should be quashed.

(3.) OPP . party No. 2 made allegations in the F.I.R. that the petitioners set fire to his house, assaulted him and his son, committed theft of articles from his house, abused them in obscene language in public place and threatened them with dire consequences. The statements of the informant, his son and some witnesses are there to support these allegations. So, there is virtually no scope to accept the first contention that there is no prima facie case for the offences under Sections 436, 294, 506, 427, 379, 323/34, IPC.