MANORAMA MOHAPATRA Vs. HARIHAR SETHUO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition arises out of the order dated 9-8-1985 passed by Sri R.C. Acharya, Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Khurda dismissing the complaint petition under Section 203 of the Criminal Procedure Code and refusing to take cognizance.

(2.) The complainant filed an First Information Report alleging that her paddy seeds had been stolen by the Opposite Parties. After due investigation, Final Report was submitted and the complainant filed a protest petition which was treated as a complaint petition and the initial statement of the complainant was recorded. After recording the initial statement of the complainant, the learned S.D.J.M. called for the police papers connected with the investigation of the case lodged by the complainant. On 9-8-1985, Final Report along with other documents were put up and the learned S.D.J.M. also perused the complaint petition, and initial statement of the complainant and the the Final Report. It appears from the order dated 9-8-1985 that the learned S.D.J.M. mostly relied upon the materials collected by the police before submission of Final Report and basing upon those materials, the learned S.D.J.M. held that the case is of a civil nature and hence no cognizance need be taken. Against this order, the revision has been filed.

(3.) The learned advocate for the petitioner argued that the procedure adopted by the learned S.D.J.M. is quite erroneous as he is not authorised to look to the police papers and as it is not the procedure in according with the law prescribed for proceeding with a complaint filed in the court.