SERVANTS OF PEOPLE SOCIETY Vs. SRI PYARIMOHAN MOHAPATRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CHALLENGE in this revision is to the order dated 3.7.2007 passed by the S.D.J.M., Bhubaneswar in I.C.C. No. 2855 of 2005 so far as it relates to rejection of an application filed by the Petitioner for deletion of his name from the complaint petition.

(2.) FACT of the case, in brief, is that the present opposite party filed a complaint case (I.C.C. No. 2855 of 2005) against the Petitioner and others before the S.D.J.M., Bhubaneswar. The charge was framed under Sections 469/471/500/501/502/34 IPC. After completion of the complainant's evidence, the case was posted for recording of accused statement. The present Petitioner, as accused No. 3, before recording of the accused statement, filed a petition before the S.D.J.M., Bhubaneswar to delete his name from the cause title of the complaint petition on the ground that he is no more the Executive Secretary of the Servants of People Society with a further prayer not to record his statement under Section 313 Code of Criminal Procedure as the same is not permissible in the eye of law. The learned S.D.J.M. after hearing the parties rejected the application inter alia on the ground that though charge was framed since long, the Petitioner did not challenge the same and participated in the hearing, and only after the Court directed him to appear for recording accused statement, he came up with such a petition.

(3.) MR . Mohanty, learned Counsel for the opposite party, submitted that the criminal revision is not maintainable in law and amounts to abuse of process of the Court. Moreover, Petitioner has sought enforcement of the provisions of Section 248 Code of Criminal Procedure for his discharge from the complaint case. But, in the civil suit pending before the Court of Civil Judge (Senior Division), Bhubaneswar between the same parties, while filing his written statement the Petitioner has described himself as the Secretary of the Servants of People Society. The belated attempt of the Petitioner to bring his revisional application within the parameters of the alleged breach of Section 245 Code of Criminal Procedure, is nit permissible, as admittedly no such application was moved before the trial Court. Therefore, This Court cannot revise the impugned order.