SUDHANSUBALA KHATEI Vs. STATE OF ORISSA & ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.

(2.) Order dated 13.05.2003 passed by the learned JMFC, Puri in I.C.C. No. 48 of 2002 discharging the accused persons for the continuous absence of the complainant at the stage of adducing evidence before charge, as confirmed by the learned Ad-hoc Additional District and Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court-II, Puri) in Criminal Revision No. 43 of 2002, has been challenged in this application under section 482 of Cr.PC.

(3.) Cognizance was taken against the accused under section 294/379/323/34 of IPC in the complaint case and as such the case was triable by warrant procedure. The impugned order of the Magistrate reveals that the complaint case was fixed for evidence before charge, as per provision of Section 244, Cr.PC, but the complainant was absent on 09.10.2002, 06.12.2002, 24.01.2003, 06.02003 and 25.04.2003 before the date of passing of the impugned order and therefore, in exercise of power under section 245 of Cr.PC, the learned JMFC, Puri discharged the accused persons by the impugned order and the same was confirmed by the Revisional Court.