KARUNAKAR NAYAK Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present petition under S.482, Criminal Procedure Code has been filed by the petitioner against an order dated 13-11-2004 passed by the learned J. M. F. C., Pattamundei in G. R. Case No. 44 of 2004, by which the learned Magistrate rejected the final report submitted by the Investigating Officer in Pattamundai P. S. Case No. 20 of 2004, registered for the offences punishable under S.341, S.427, S.506/34 IPC and S.3 of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (P. A.) Act (in short "the Act"). The Investigating Officer had submitted a report through the Officer - in - Charge of the P. S. concerned after conclusion of the investigation with the observation that witnesses named in the F. I. R. had not well proved the occurrence. According to them the FIR was lodged on some misconception of fact and both the parties were living happily in the village.

(2.) THE brief facts of the case are that opposite party No.2 Narayan Mallick lodged a written report before the Officer - in - Charge, Pattamundai P. S. alleging therein that on 10-2-2004 at night, he along with others had been to village Alapua to watch the Apera party. After bringing the ticket when they watched the Apera one Surendra Mallick abused him in fitthy language and assaulted him. On being protested by the brother of the opposite party No.2, the accused persons assaulted him for which both the informant and his brother sustained injuries on their person.

(3.) THEREAFTER , the I. O. came to the conclusion that none of the witnesses would prove the case before the Court, as they were not intending to give proper evidence after compromise. An affidavit had also been annexed to this petition as Annexure - 3 on being verified by the Notary Public Kendrapara Town dated 22-3-2004 and the same being sworn to by Narayan Mallick, opposite party No.2 in which he has stated that due to some heated quarrel between him and the accused persons, he lodged the F. I. R. on misconception of fact. However, the dispute between them has been compromised by the village gentries, and thereafter there was no breach of peace among both the parties and good amicable relationship has been restored between the parties. Both the parties are living peacefully in the village and as such opposite party No.2 does not want to proceed with the case. The affidavit has been filed in G. R. Case No. 44 of 2004.