BIJAY NAYAK Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners have filed this application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing the orders dated 28/3/2005 and 22/6/2005 passed by the learned S.D.J.M., Bhadrak in ICC No. 397 of 2004/G.R. Case No. 677 of 2004 taking cognizance of the offence under Section 3 of the S.C. and S.T. (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.

(2.) One Ambi Mukhi lodged an F.I.R. before the Officer-in-charge, Banth P.S. in the district of Bhadrak alleging therein that on 2/6/2004 at about 11.00 A.M. the petitioners came to her house and damaged the same. Again on 4/6/2004 while she was constructing the house with bamboo and straw, the petitioners armed with weapons attacked and scolded her by obscene language. The said F.I.R. was registered as Banth P.S. Case No. 38 of 2004 and investigation started. After completion of investigation, charge-sheet was submitted for commission of offences under Sections 147, 148, 323, 324, 325, 294, 354, 506 and 149 of the Penal Code against some of the accused persons. After submission of charge-sheet, the informant not being satisfied filed a petition praying the Court to take cognizance for commission of offences under Sections 354 and 379 of the Penal Code read with Section 3 of the S.C. and S.T. (Prevention of Atrocities) Act and also alleged that apart from the charge-sheeted accused persons, Sahadev Behera and Ashok Nayak are involved in commission of offences and process be issued against the said accused persons. The trial Court rejected the petition by order dated 16.12.2004 on the ground that at the stage of trial, if evidence is adduced by the prosecution regarding involvement of other accused persons or commission of any other offence for which charge-sheet has not been submitted, steps could be taken under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. This order was not challenged by the informant and it attained finality. Thereafter, a complaint was filed by the informant vide I.C.C. No. 397 of 2004 in the very same Court alleging commission of offence under Section 3 of the S.C. and ST (P.A.) Act. In the said complaint case, inquiry under Section 202 Cr.P.C. was taken up and cognizance for commission of the said offence was taken by order dated 22/6/2005. Challenging the orders dated 28/3/2005 and 22/6/2005 this application has been filed.

(3.) Sri Mohapatra, the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that the protest petition filed by the informant after submission of charge sheet had been rejected by order dated 16.12.2004 and the same having been rejected, there was no scope for filing a second complaint on the self same allegation against the same accused persons. The learned Counsel for the informant/complainant, on the other hand, submitted that a second complaint is not a bar and under certain circumstances, a second complaint is maintainable In this connection, reference may be made to a decision of the Apex Court in the case of Mahesh Chand v. B. Janardhan Reddy and Anr. reported in. The Apex Court in the said case observed as follows: