BANCHHANIDHI MAHARATHA Vs. SRINIBASS PAIKROY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BANCHHANIDHI Maharatha (Petitioner) filed a complaint on 25-11-64 under sections 147 and 379. I. P. C. against Srinibash Paikroy (opp. party-1) and 17 others alleging that at about 6 A. M. on 28-11-64 they cut away the paddy which ho grew on the disputed land, Petitioner's case is that he looked after the properties of Orami Math in village Orami in Khurda Sub-division and cultivated the lands of the said Math On the date of occurrence, while he was absent from the village, opposite party No. 1 with the help of a large number of persons forcibly cut away the paddy. The complainant was examined on oath under Section 200, Cr. P. C. on 27-11-64 The complaint petition was sent to the officer in charge, Khurda Police Station for enquiry and report under Section 202. Cr. P. C. The Officer-in-charge examined the witnesses on behalf of the complainant and some of the accused persons. He perused a registered sale deed executed by one luxmipriya Debi on 28-10-64 in favour of opposite party No. 1 The Officer-incharge submitted a report on 28 4-66 after giving notice to the accused. The report was to the following effect.

(2.) MR. Ray advances the following contentions

(3.) MR. Misra raised a preliminary objection that if a complaint is dismissed under section 203, Cr. P. C. , it is open to the complainant to invoke the revisional jurisdiction of the Sessions Judge under Section 436, Cr. P. C. whereunder he has the power to direct further inquiry and give complete relief to the complainant. Without initially invoking the powers of the Sessions Judge, it was not open to the complainant to invoke the concurrent jurisdiction of the High Court. Mr. Ray combats the preliminary objection on the ground that the jurisdiction under Section 436 is concurrent and a party can approach the High Court without approaching the Sessions Judge. The prohibition, if any, is not legal but is one of practice, and that once the High Court has admitted the revision, dismissal on this ground would entail prejudice and hardship, and, as such, the revision should not be thrown out.