SRIMATI SABITA SUNDARI SAHOO Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THOUGH the matter has been listed for admission, on the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, it is taken up for final disposal at the stage of admission. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

(2.) ONE Biswanath Patnaik of Itamati filed a complaint petition before the learned S.D.J.M. Nayagarh alleging commission of offences under Sections 420, 294, 506/34, IPC by the present petitioner and her husband -Bhikari Charan Sahoo. Learned S.D.J.M., Nayagarh forwarded that complaint petition to Nayagarh P.S.under Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C. for investigation. Accordingly, the police authority registered Nayagarh P.S. Case No.44 of 2000 corresponding to G.R. Case No.116 of 2000 of the Court of the learned S.D.J.M., Nayagarh and took up investigation. After investigation they submitted charge sheet for the offence under Sections 420, 294, 506/34, IPC arraying the petitioner and her husband as accused persons. Learned S.D.J.M., Nayagarh took cognizance of those offences and directed for issue of process against the accused persons. Aggrieved, the petitioner has filed the present application under Section 482, Cr.P.C. for quashing of the impugned order of cognizance dated 24.8.2000. Mr. S. K. Sahoo, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that even if the allegations made by the informant -complainant in the complaint petition are accepted in its entirety, yet no prima facie case for the alleged offences is made out against the petitioner and for that reason it is necessary to quash the order of cognizance. In support of his contention Mr. Sahoo cites the cases of Nageswar Prasad Singh @ Sinha v. Narayan Singh and another (1998) 15 OCR (SC) - 542 and Jaffar Ali and another v. Gangadhar Sahoo 1998 (1) OLR -63.