MEGHANAD BHAINSAL Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this revision, the Petitioners challenge the Order Dated 07.11.2006 passed by the S.D.J.M., Sundargarh taking cognizance of the offence under Sections 302/201/34 IPC against them in I.C.C. Case No. 17 of 2005 instituted by Opposite Party No. 2.

(2.) BRIEF facts of the case is that Opposite Party No. 2 initially lodged an FIR before the OIC, Hemagiri PS. against Petitioner No. 1 and another co -accused, namely, Abhimanyu Patta, with the allegation of murder of his son. Accordingly, Hemagiri P.S. Case No. 36 of 2005 was registered and after investigation final form was submitted against two accused persons, namely, Arjun Bhoi and Ajaya Kumar Mod Bahali. Thereafter, Opposite Party No. 2 filed the above noted complaint case before the S.D.J.M., Sundargarh against the Petitioners and another co -accused Abhimanyu Patta. After registration of the complaint case, the complainant examined himself under Section 200 Cr.P.C. and some of the witnesses mentioned in the complaint petition under Section 202 Cr.P.C. The S.D.J.M., by the impugned order, took cognizance against the Petitioners and another co -accused, namely, Abhimanyu Patta under Sections 302/201/34 IPC and issued process against them for their arrest.

(3.) MR . Jena, Learned Counsel appearing for Opposite Party No. 2 supported the impugned order passed by the S.D.J.M. He submitted that it is the duty of the Court while taking cognizance to see whether prima facie case exists to proceed against the accused persons. He further submitted that 'sufficient grounds' means prima facie case and does not mean sufficient ground for conviction.