PRAMILA MOHAPATRA Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application u/S. 482, Criminal Procedure Code praying for quashing the order dated 9-8-1994 passed by the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Dhenkanal taking cognizance against the petitioner in G.R. Case No. 159 of 1994.

(2.) The petitioner is an Asst. Public Prosecutor attached to the Court of Smt. Haripriya Das, Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Dhenkanal. It is alleged that one Sri Sasanka Sekhar Rath, Headmaster of Laxmidhar High School, Dhenkanal lodged a complaint with the police on 24-3-1994 making certain false and frivolous allegations against the petitioner. It has been further alleged that the petitioner along with one Rabin Dutta entered the office of the informant and asked the informant in high tone to order his clerk and peon to go out of the office room and on refusal by the informant the petitioner broke the pen-stand and thereafter she took away some documents pertaining to her sister, Urmila, who was serving as an Asst. Teacher in the said school. On the basis of this FIR the petitioner was arrested by the Inspector-in-charge, Dhenkanal P.S. on 15-7-1994 and produced in the Court of the S.D.J.M. Dhenkanal on the same day.

(3.) On account of sudden arrest of the petitioner, the members of the Dhenkanal Bar Association struck work and there was commotion in Dhenkanal town. Thereafter the informant voluntarily came to court and submitted a written statement on the same day, i.e., on 15-7-1994 stating that the petitioner has not committed any offence. According to the petitioner the S.D.J.M. without applying his mind and without giving any opportunity of hearing to her took cognizance of the case against her on 9-8-1994. The petitioner alleges that she had made complaint to the higher authority of the police and as such the police bore grudge against her and to feed fat (sic) the grudge against her she was arrested on 15-7-1994. She claims that she conducted cases in the Court of the J.M.F.C., Dhenkanal to which she was attached from 10-30 a.m. to 4 p.m. on 21-3-1994 and as such it was absolutely false to say that she visited the office of the informant on that date at about 10-50 a.m. and committed the offence as alleged. Accordingly, the petitioner has moved this Court for quashing the cognizance taken by the learned Magistrate.