KRUSHNA CHANDRA SAHU Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this Criminal Misc. Case under Section 482, Cr.P.C. the petitioners who are father and son have prayed for quashing of the order of cognizance dated 19.12.2003 in G.R. Case No. 23 of 2003 passed by learned J.M.F.C. Patrapur (GM). Learned Magistrate took cognizance of the offences under Sections 341, 323, 392, 506/34, IPC on the allegation of opposite party No.2.

(2.) The prosecution case, as it appears from the complaint petition which was subsequently treated as FIR as per the direction of the learned Magistrate under Section 156 (3), Cr.P.C. in short is that the complainant-opposite party No.2 A. Ranga Rao, petitioner No. 1 Krushna Chandra Sahu, Rajendra Kumar Sahu, Basudev Panda, Pravakar Sabat and Prafulla Kumar Sahu constituted a firm in the name and style of Madhupriya Estate'. They also executed a partnership deed on 1.8.1998 and according to the terms of the partnership deed they had to share the capital. It is alleged that petitioner No. 1 Krushna Chandra Sahu did not render any account, income and expenditure of the firm to the complainant- partner A. Ranga Rao. For this act of petitioner No. 1 the relationship between the complainant and the petitioner No. 1 soured. When the complainant insisted for rendering accounts petitioner No. 1 did not give the same and misappropriated the firm's money. It is also alleged that the complainant had reported the matter on 15.10.2002 at Golanthara PS, but the police did not take any action on the matter. It is also alleged in the complaint petition that on 5.2.2003 both the petitioner came in a Motor-cycle, rebuked the complainant, threatened him, dealt fist blows and took away cash of Rs.20,000/- from his pocket when he was proceeding on the canal road towards Berhampur town. On these allegations a complaint petition was filed alleging further that the complainant had been to the police and the police called him 4-5 times, but ultimately did not take any action. The said complaint petition filed before the learned Magistrate on 17.2.2003 was registered as ICC No. 2/2003 and subsequently the learned Magistrate forwarded the complaint petition to the OIC, Golanthara PS to treat the same as FIR under Section 156(3), Cr.P.C.. and to proceed with the same in accordance with law. On receipt of the said complaint from the Court the Golanthara police treated the same as FIR, registered Golanthara PS case No.98/ 2003 for the offence under Sections 341. 323, 392 and 506/34 IPC and proceeded with the investigation and on completion of the investigation submitted charge-sheet. Although there was no legal material available/collected during the course of the investigation and the learned Magistrate after receipt of the charge-sheet without application of his judicial mind and without considering the backdrop which resulted in the initiation of the case against the petitioners, took cognizance of the offence it is alleged.

(3.) The salient grounds taken by the petitioners in this application under Section 482, Cr.P.C. to quash the order of cognizance are that there exists dispute of civil nature between the parties arising out of the partnership firm. The complainant-opposite party No.2 since failed in his attempt to rope in petitioner NO. 1 in another criminal case which he had earlier initiated against him, he has come out with the frivolous complaint to wreck vengeance against the petitioners who are father and son and are in no way involved in the alleged offences.