SIBARAM NAIK Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE revision has been filed by the accused in G.R. Cape No. 60 of 1966 for quashing the proceeding.

(2.) ONE Majhia Tara of village Nusasahi lodged an F.I.R. at the P.S. alleging that Petitioner set fire to her house at about 11.30 P.M. on 23 -5 -1966. After investigation, police submitted a final report under Section 173(1), Code of Criminal Procedure on 21.6.1966 to the effect that the evidence was insufficient to put the accused on trial. This report was put up before the learned S.D.O. on 9 -7 -1966 when directed the same to be put up on 16 -7 -1966. In the mean while, on 14.7.1966, the informant filed a protest petition, but the learned S.D.O. did not examine her on solemn affirmation. Subsequently, after calling for a note from the C.S.J. and perusing the case diary, the learned S.D.O. directed Shri D.C. Das, Magistrate, 1st Class to cause a judicial enquiry and send his report. After receipt of the enquiry report from the learned Magistrate, the learned S.D.O. passed an order on 16 -12 -1966 calling upon the police to file a charge sheet under Section 436, Indian Penal Code. In compliance with this order, the police submitted a charge -sheet on 11 -2 -1967 and the learned S.D.M. (Judl.) passed the following order:

(3.) THE only point for consideration is whether the cognizance for an offence under Section 436, Indian Penal Code taken against the Petitioner is legal. Learned Counsel appearing for Petitioner contends that once a final report under Section 173(1), Code of Criminal Procedure had been submitted by the police, the learned S.D.O. had DO jurisdiction to call for a charge -sheet. It is also pointed out that he has not chosen to treat the protest petition as a complaint and adopted suitable procedure indicated in the Code in Cases where cognizance is taken on a complaint.