SUBASH CHANDRA MOHAPATRA Vs. RAMA SANKAR MISHRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this application u/S.482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (in short, 'the Code'), petitioner who is one of the accused persons in the complaint case vide I.C.C.No. 4 of 1991 of the Court of S.D.J.M., Bhanjanagar, has challenged legality and sustainability of the order of taking cognizance vide order dated 1-5-1991. Opposite party Nos. 1 and 2 are the co-accused and opposite party No. 3 is the complainant in that case.

(2.) Between 10.30 A.M.and 11 A.M.on 8-1-1989 an occurrence involving violence occurred at Sandeep Talkies of Bhanjanagar in which the opposite party No. 3 sustained a bullet injury fired from a revolver. Opposite party No. 1 was the manager of that cinema hall and petitioner No. 1, being a Police Officer who had come to depose as witness in the local judicial Court, was a visitor in that cinema hall at the time of occurrence. On the basis of the report of the opposite party No. 1 police registered a case against the complainant/opposite party No. 3 and others (as his associates). In that case charge sheet was filed and the accused persons were committed to the Court of Session and after the trial opposite party no. 3 was convicted for the offence u/S.307, I.P.C.vide judgment and conviction order dated 28-4-90 of the Assistant Sessions Judge, Bhanjanagar in Sessions Case No. 13 of 1989. The information lodged by the opposite party No. 3 was resulted in submission of final report and as alleged by the petitioner, without considering its acceptance or refusal opposite party No. 3 was noticed and his second complaint petition was accepted and enquired into u/S.202 of the Code and the impugned order of cognizance of the offence u/S.307, 294, 506/34, I.P.C.was taken and also order was passed to issue non-bailable warrant of arrest (in short, 'NBWA').

(3.) As it reveals from the L.C.R.i.e. the case record of the I.C.C.No. 4 of 1991 that the co-accused, i.e., the opposite party Nos. 1 and 2 challenged the impugned order in Criminal Revision No. 22 of 1991 of the Court of 2nd Addl. Sessions Judge, Berhampur (C.R.P.No. 64/91 GDC) raising similar contentions as in this case and on 24-3-1992 that revision was dismissed on merit. Their applications u/S.482 of the Code vide Crl. Misc. Case No. 1359 of 1992 filed against the revisional order was dismissed for default on 24-1-1994.