SUDARSHAN SABAT AND ORS. Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure challenging the order dated 19 -2 -1992 passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bhubaneswar, in G.R. Case No. 538 of 1986. The Petitioners are the accused persons. The G.R. Case was registered on the basis of the F.I.R. lodged by one Sanatan Bisoi who was a Conductor of the bus bearing registration number O.S.C. 383. In the F.I. R. it was alleged that the accused persons threatened the informant, abused him in filthy language and assaulted him after surrounding him. On the basis of the aforesaid allegations, the case was registered under Sections 342, 506, 323, 294/34, Indian Penal Code. However, after investigation while submitting the charge sheet, it was alleged that apart from the aforesaid offences, the accused persons had committed the offences under Sections 186 and 189, Indian Penal Code, as they had abused and threatened the Investigating Officer when he had gone to the spot for investigation. On the basis of the aforesaid charge sheet cognizance was taken. During the pendency of the case before the concerned Magistrate, a petition under Section 320 Code of Criminal Procedure, was filed on behalf of the informant stating that he had compounded the offences with accused persons. The Magistrate while permitting compounding of the offences under Sections 342, 506 and 323/34, Indian Penal Code, observed that the case must proceed as the offences under Sections 294, 186 and 189, Indian Penal Code, were not compoundable. Against the aforesaid order, the present application has been filed.

(2.) THE learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioners submitted that the Magistrate had no jurisdiction to take cognizance of the alleged offences under Sections 186 and 189, I.P.C., in the absence of an appropriate complaint petition filed by the public servant concerned, as contemplated under Section 195(1)(a) (i), Criminal Procedure Code. He has further submitted that in the trial, the alleged victim as well as his brother alleged to be an eye witness, and another witness has already been examined and the alleged victim has not stated anything about the alleged offence under Section 294, I.P.C.. It is, therefore, submitted by the learned Counsel that the continuance of the criminal proceeding would be an abuse of the process of Court and shall not be in the interest of justice and is required to be quashed.

(3.) THE next question is as to whether the trial should proceed in respect of the alleged offence under Section 294, I.P.C.. The Magistrate was definitely correct in stating that the alleged offence under Section 294 was not compoundable. Even then as observed in the decision reported in 82, (1996) C.L.T. 723 :, (1996) 11 O.C. Rule 77 Sudhakar Naik and 13 Ors. v. State and 3 Ors. the High Court in appropriate case can quash a proceeding in respect of a non -compoundable offence in the interest of justice. In the present case, it appears that the alleged victim as well as two other witnesses has been examined. The alleged victim has categorically stated that he had not been abused in obscene language. The other two witnesses have also not stated anything regarding the alleged abuse in obscene language. The incident itself was of the year 1986 and twelve years have lapsed in the meantime. As already noticed, the accused persons have been acquitted in respect of the alleged offences under Sections 323, 506 and 342, I.P. C. in view of the compromise petition filed on behalf of the informant In such view of the matter, it would not be in the interest of justice to allow the criminal case to continue any further. For the aforesaid reasons, the criminal proceeding in G.R. Case No. 538 of 1986 in the Court of the S.D. J.M., Bhubaneswar, is quashed.