AKSHAYA KUMAR PARIDA Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE informant -opp. party No. 2 filed a written report before the I.I.C., Mancheswar Police Station on 31.5.2001 and basing on that report Mancheswar P.S. Case No. 108 of 2001 was registered. After investigation of the case, charge -sheet was submitted against the accused for offences under Sections 341, 323, 294, 354, 506, IPC and Section 3 of the S.C. and S.T. (PA) Act in the corresponding G.R. Case No. 1753 of 2001. Learned S.D.J.M., Bhubaneswar after perusing the materials on record took cognizance of those offences and issued N.B.W. for production of the petitioner -accused. Pursuant to that warrant issued by the Court, the petitioner was arrested, produced, remanded to the custody and was then released on bail. The petitioner has now filed this application under Section 482, Cr.P.C. for quashing the proceedings of G.R. Case No. 1753 of 2001 pending before the S.D.J.M., Bhubaneswar basically on the plea that the order of cognizance and issue of warrant against him was illegal.

(2.) MR . A. K. Parida appearing in person submitted that the allegations made in the FIR against him are false and designed to harass him. He submitted that there is also no material on record to establish prima facie case for the alleged offences, but without application of mind, learned S.D.J.M., Bhubaneswar took cognizance of the offence mechanically. He also submitted that case was registered for several offences including offence under Section 3 of the S.C. and S.T. (PA) Act, but in violation of the provision of Section 7 of the S.C. and S.T. (P.A.) Rules (hereinafter referred to 'the Rules') investigation of the case was conducted by an A.S.I. of Police and thereafter the impugned order of cognizance is unsustainable in the eye of law. In support of his contention Mr. Parida cited the cases of Pema Ram v. State of Rajasthan (1993) Crl. L.J. 252 : State v. Smt. D. Jayamma and Anr. (2002) Crl. L.J. 3872 and Jhulu Behera alias Dalai and Anr. v. State of Orissa, 2000 (I) OLR 208 : [2000 (2) Crimes 385.

(3.) MS . (C. Kasturi, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for opposite party No. 1 submitted that the allegations against the petitioner noted in the FIR have been substantially corroborated by the informant and witnesses and therefore it is incorrect to say that prima facie case is not made out for the alleged offences from the materials produced by the prosecution. According to her truth of the allegation and the reliability of the statement of witnesses are matters to be threshed out at the stage of trial and not at the stage of cognizance. It is further submitted that although the investigation of the case was started by one A.S.I. of police of Mancheswar Police Station, subsequently one D.S.P. took charge of the investigation, completed the same and submitted the charge -sheet and so mandates of Rule 7 of the S.C. and S.T. (P.A.) Rules was never violated. Learned Additional Government Advocate claimed that the impugned order cannot be quashed as it does not suffer from any factual or legal error.