DHRUBA JYOTI BASU Vs. SMT. SUMITRA BASU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) None appears for opp. party in spite of notice. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.

(2.) Petitioner is one of the accused persons in I.C.C. Case No. 195 of 1996 pending in the file of S.D.J.M., Jajpur. Complaint petition was filed by the opposite party who is the wife of the petitioner. After an enquiry under Sec. 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short the Code), learned S.D.J.M. took cognizance of the offence under Sec. 498(A)/34, I.P.C. and Sec. 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and also passed order to issue process against the petitioner and the co-accused persons on the ground that a prima facie case exist against them. Petitioner challenged the order of cognizance and filed a writ application vide O.J.C. No. 8706 of 1996. On 21.8.1996 that O.J.C. was disposed of with a direction that if the question of maintainability of the proceeding will be raised learned S.D.J.M. shall consider the same in view of law laid down by apex Court in K.M. Mathew v. State of Kerala and others (1992) 5 OCR 66. Petitioner entered appearance through lawyer and filed an application in the Court of S.D.J.M., but when the case was posted for hearing of the petition filed by the petitioner, none appeared or participated in the proceeding on his behalf even though suo motu the matter was adjourned for several times. On 7.11.1997 learned S.D.J.M. thus perused the petition and passed order confirming the previous cognizance order. Against the said order of cognizance, petitioner again filed a writ application vide O.J.C. No. 16791 of 1997 and the same was disposed of inter alia with the observation that if so advised petitioner may prefer a Crl. Revision and that revision may be disposed of expeditiously within a period of 15 days. Accordingly petitioner filed Crl. Revision No. 156 of 1997 in the Court of Sessions Judge, Cuttack. Learned Sessions Judge after hearing the parties at length dismissed the Crl. Revision by way of confirming the order of learned S.D.J.M. Hence petitioner has filed this application under Sec. 482 of the Code with the following prayer:

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner argued at length giving the background dispute between the spouses alleging motive behind filing of the complaint case and challenging the order of taking cognizance as well as correctness of the order of the learned Sessions Judge. He also argued that there was noncompliance of the order dated 21.8.1996 in O.J.C. No. 8706 of 1996 inasmuch as without affording opportunity of hearing petitioner's application was rejected and cognizance order was confirmed.