DANDU PRADHAN Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners call in question the orders dated 16.11.2004 and 7.3.2005 passed by the learned S.D.J.M., Nayagarh in I.C.C. case No. 131 of 2004 wherein he took cognizance for the offence under Sections, 323/506/379 of I.P.C. and issued summons against them for their appearance on 21.12.2004 in the first order and ordered to proceed against accused Inda Bhuyan and Gunjar Dei under Sections 323/506/379 of I.P.C. and to tag the complaint case with G.R. Case No. 412 of 2004 for the rest of the accused persons for the offence under Sections 323/506 of I.P.C. and further ordered that the complaint case has to proceed against all the accused persons for the offence under Section 379 of I.P.C. in the second order.

(2.) THE fact germane to filing of this CRLMC under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. is that on 20.9.2004 opp. party No. 2 Chari Bhuyan lodged an FIR against the petitioners, 7 in number, on the basis of which Sarankul P.S. case No. 63 of 2004 was registered under Sections 341/323/448/354/506 read with Section 34 of I.P.C. giving rise to G.R. Case No. 412 of 2004 of the file of S.D.J.M., Nayagarh. While investigation in the said case was in progress opp. party No. 2 filed the aforesaid complaint case in respect of the same occurrence against the petitioners and two more others namely, Inda Bhuyan and Gunjar Dei. Even though it was brought to the notice of the learned S.D.J.M. Nayagarh, he neither stayed the further proceeding of the complaint case nor called for a report from the police officer conducting investigation and thereby violated the mandate of Section 210(1) of Cr.P.C. After completion of investigation in the aforesaid G.R. case, on 13.12.2004 the I.O. submitted charge sheet under Section 341/323/448/354/506 read with Section 34 of I.P.C. and vide the 1st impugned order dated 16.11.2004 the learned S.D.J.M. took . cognizance of the aforesaid offences and ordered to issue process against the petitioners fixing 21.12.2004 for their appearance. The petitioners filed a petition to drop the proceeding against them in the complaint case, but the learned S.D.J.M. vide order dated 7.3.2005 passed the 2nd impugned order as stated earlier. Hence, the petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. giving rise to the aforesaid CRLMC.

(3.) LEARNED counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that when it was brought to the notice of the learned S.D.J.M. that on the report of the complainant -O.P., on the selfsame occurrence a P.S. case had been registered and investigation was in progress, it was incumbent upon the learned S.D.J.M. to stay the further proceeding in the complaint case and call for a report from the I.O. as postulated under Section 210 of Cr.P.C. and when it has not been done so, the order of taking cognizance in the complaint case and the subsequent orders dated 7.3.2005 deserved to be quashed. The learned Additional Standing Counsel supported the impugned order.