UMASHANKAR AGRAWAL ALIAS UMASHANKAR Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ONE Sobha Singhal, a young bride, vanished from mother earth shortly more than a year after her marriage. Admittedly she was married to accused Umashankar Agrawal @ Singhal on 30th of May, 1996 and on 16th of September, 1997 a report was lodged with police at Uditnagar Outpost by husband Umashankar that his wife Sobha was missing. At the other hand, on 19th September, 1997, Rajkishore Chhapolia, father of Sobha, filed an FIR at the Plant Site Police Station, Rourkela stating that he apprehended some foul play at the matrimonial house of Sobha. On the basis of the FIR of Rajkishore Chhapolia, Plant Site P.S. Case No. 317 of 1997 was registered. On completion of investigation police submitted charge -sheet under Sections 498 -A/34 IPC against Umashankar Singhal and Rani @ Laxmi Kumari Podar. Learned SDJM, Panposh took cognizance of the aforesaid offences in G.R. Case No. 1483 of 1997 and framed charge against them.

(2.) THE aforesaid accused persons challenged the order of the SDJM framing charge against them in revision, vide Criminal Revision No. 1 of 1999 before the Addl. Sessions Judge, Rourkela and the said revisional Court quashed the charge and discharged both the accused persons. In the meanwhile, being dissatisfied with the progress of investigation, the informant moved this Court by filing a habeas corpus petition registered as OJC No. 11409 of 1998. This Court in the said Writ application directed the local police to trace out Sobha. While matter stood thus, this Court on coming to know about the order passed by the Addl. Sessions Judge, Rourkela, disposed of the Writ application with direction to the investigating agency to cause further investigation into the case. In consonance with the said direction of this Court, the SDJM, Panposh accorded permission to the Inspector of Police, Human Rights Protection Cell, Orissa, Cuttack to re -investigate into the case and after such re -investigation the investigating officer submitted final report on the ground that he could not find sufficient evidence to lay a chargesheet. The conclusion arrived at is quoted hereinbelow : From the fact and circumstances discussed above it is a true case Under Section 498 -A/302/201/34 IPC and accused persons (1) Uma Shankar Singhal, (2) Satyanarayan Singhal, (3) Raju @ Rajkumar Singhal, (4) Gouri @ Gourishankar Singhal, (5) Jagdish Prasad Singhal, (6) Geeta Devi and (7) Driver Hari Oram liable but the circumstantial evidence collected so far are not sufficient to place chargesheet against them Jagadish Prasad Singhal @ Agarwal and Geeta Devi has since expired the case against them abated.

(3.) ACCORDING to Mr. Debasis Panda, learned Counsel for the petitioners, once the SDJM had issued notice to the informant after receiving final report from police, he had no jurisdiction to take cognizance of the offences alleged or issue process without following the provisions of Section 202 CrPC. He forcefully submitted that after receiving a protest petition the SDJM ought to have registered the same as a Complaint Case and the provisions made in the CrPC to deal with a Complaint Case ought to have been strictly followed. Failure to do so has vitiated the order of the SDJM. In short, according to Mr. Panda, if the cognizance taking Magistrate after going through the materials is satisfied that a prima facie case is not made out and issues notice to the informant for filing protest petition, then without registering the protest petition as a complaint case and without following the procedure of Section 202 CrPC he cannot take cognizance of an offence and issue NBWA against the accused. He further submitted that in the present case the SDJM having not followed the said provision, has acted illegally and the impugned order is liable to be quashed. In support of his submission Mr. Panda relied upon several decisions, but then as there is no quarrel with the legal proposition advanced by him, I refrain from dilating on that.