MUKESH KUMAR WADHWA Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner Mukesh Kumar Wadhwa has filed this application under sec. 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code challenging the impugned order dtd. 9/3/2009 of the learned S.D.J.M., Jharsuguda passed in G.R. No.1939 of 2008 in taking cognizance of offence under Sec. 506/34 of the Indian Penal Code and sec. 6 of the Indecent Representation of Women (Prohibition) Act, 1986 (hereafter '1986 Act') and issuance of process against him. The said case arises out of Jharsuguda P.S. Case No.724 of 2008.

(2.) Mr. Bijaya Kumar Ragada, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that as per the first information report lodged by the victim on 31/12/2008 before the Inspector in charge, Jharsuguda police station, though the case was registered under Sec. 376(2)(g)/506 and sec. 6 of the 1986 Act against the petitioner and others but during course of investigation, it was found that there are materials for commission of offences under Sec. 376/506 against co-accused Brundaban Naik. So far as the petitioner and other co-accused persons are concerned, they were charge sheeted under sec. 506 of the Indian Penal Code and sec. 6 of the 1986 Act. It is further submitted that the victim was serving in the shop of the petitioner where the co-accused Brundaban Naik was also serving and when the petitioner came to know about the illicit relationship between the victim and the co-accused Brundaban Naik, he asked the victim to leave the service for which a false case has been foisted against the petitioner. It is further contended that the ingredients of offence under sec. 6 of 1986 Act are not attracted and though it is alleged in the 161 Cr.P.C. statement of the victim that the petitioner and others took her nude photographs in the camera and mobile phone but nothing was seized during course of investigation to substantiate such aspect and therefore, it is a fit case where this Court should invoke its inherent power under sec. 482 of Cr.P.C. to quash the impugned order of cognizance. Learned counsel for the petitioner placed the 161 Cr.P.C. statement of the victim as well as charge sheet.

(3.) Mr. Priyabrata Tripathy, learned Addl. Standing Counsel on the other hand supported the impugned order and contended that there is no such palpable error in the order so as to be interfered with invoking inherent power under sec. 482 of Cr.P.C.