HRUDAMANI BEWA Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This criminal revision is directed against the order dated 18.8.2005 passed by the learned J.M.F.C., Banpur dismissing the complaint (I.C.C. No.103 of 2005) under Section 203 Cr.P.C., with a finding that there is no sufficient ground to proceed against opposite parties 2 and 3.

(2.) Case of the petitioner is that she filed a complaint under Sections 294/323/506/34 IPC and Section 3 of the S.C. & S.T. (P.A.) Act before the J.M.F.C., Banpur, which was registered as I.C.C. No.103 of 2005. After recording of her initial statement, two witnesses were examined by her under Section 202 Cr. P.C. But on 18.8.2005, learned J.M.F.C. dismissed the complaint under Section 203 Cr.P.C. on the ground that essential ingredients of the aforesaid offences are not established; that there are material discrepancies in the statement of the complainant and that of the witnesses; and that although one Ratnakar Sethi was named as an occurrence witness, he was not examined by the complainant.

(3.) Mr. Pradhan, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that essential ingredients of all the above offences are well established by the witnesses including the complainant against the present opposite parties 2 and 3. At the time of taking cognizance, the duty of the Magistrate is to see whether prima facie case is made out to proceed against the offender or not. At that stage, he is not required to see whether the case would end in conviction. A proceeding cannot be thrown out at the threshold on the ground of discrepancies in the evidence of the witnesses examined during enquiry unless the same make the prosecution allegations inherently improbable or absurd. He further submitted that deposition of the witnesses is crystal clear with regard to use of obscene language, i.e., "BEDHEI DHOBANI" by the accused opposite parties 2 and 3. Therefore, ingredients of the offence under Section 3 S.C. & S.T. (P.A.) Act and Section 294 IPC are well established. He also submitted that there is prima facie case against the accused opposite parties 2 and 3 under Section 323/506 IPC as well. In support of his case, he placed reliance on the decisions in Chandra Deo Singh v. Prakash Chandra Bose and another; Nirmal Jit Singh Hoon v. State of West Bengal; State of Karnataka and another v. Pastor P. Raju; CRPF Finance Ltd. v. Shree Santhi Homes; Jagdish Ram v. State of Rajasthan; Chandramani Chand and Ors. v. Banchanidhi Swain and Anr.