BIPIN SAHU Vs. KUMARI NIRUPAMA BAGARTI AND ANR.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Addl. Standing Counsel. In spite of notice being made sufficient, none appears for opposite party No. 1

(2.) This is an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C., 1973 to quash the order of taking cognizance for the offence under Section 376. IPC dated 2.9.2005 passed by the learned S.D.J.M. Titilagarh in ICC Case No. 18 of 2005 passed against the petitioner.

(3.) Mr. Jairaj Behera, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the victim woman had filed an F.I.R. before IIC, Titilagarh Police Station, basing on which Titilagarh P.S. Case No. 41 of 2003 was registered and investigation proceeded. The police after investigation since found that no case is made out against the accused, submitted final form. But the victim-woman filed protest petition in the shape of a complaint. Learned Magistrate without applying judicial mind, did not proceed to make enquiry under Section 202, Cr.P.C., 1973 in spite of the request of the victim-woman. At the same time, he took cognizance for the offence under Section 376, IPC and issued process against the petitioner.