ASHOK KUMAR MOHANTY Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel and this application under Section 482, CrPC. is disposed of at the stage of admission on consent of both the parties.

(2.) PETITIONER is one of the accused persons in G.R. Case No. 390 of 2005 of the Court of S.D.J.M., Bhadrak. Charge sheet was filed against seven accused persons for the offence under Section 498 -A/494/506/34, I.P.C. and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act (in short 'D.P. Act') on the basis of F.I.R. lodged by the father of one Haraypriya Sahu being described as the wife of accused Ashok Kumar Sahoo. It is alleged in the F.I.R. that there was torture and ill -treatment on her by the husband and the in -laws constituting the offence under Section 498 -A/34, I.P.C. It is further alleged that with the mediation of the present petitioner, marriage of Ashok Kumar Sahoo was performed with accused Puspita Mallik constituting the offence under Section 494, J.P.C. and petitioner and the parents of that girl committed the offence under Section 494/34, I.P.C. and 494/109, I.P.C,

(3.) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner argues that on the face of the statutory provision in Section 198, Cr.P.C. together with definition of the term 'Complaint' as provided in Section 2(d), Cr.P.C. learned S.D.J.M. acted illegally in taking cognizance of the offence under Section 494/109, I.P.C. and issuing process under Section 204, Cr.P.C. against the petitioner.