JUDGMENT : P.K. Tripathy, J. - Petitioner has filed this application u/s 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short, 'the Code') with the prayer to quash G. R. Case No. 852 of 1995 of the Court of S. D. J. M, Puri, so far as it relates to the petitioner, on the ground of absence of a prima facie case for the offence punishable u/s. 306/34, I. P. C. against him not with standing the rejection of the earlier application by the petitioner as not pressed as per order dated 7-3-2000 in Criminal Misc. Case No. 235 of 2000, which was also an application u|s. 482, Cr. P. C. filed by the petitioner with the same prayer on the self same averments. 2. While investigating into U. D. Case No. 9 of 1995 relating to the suicidal death of Malaya Kumar Mishra, aboy aged about 18 years, it came to light that on the issue of sending a letter by the said Malaya to the sister of accused Kitu @Debasis Mishra there were some incidents of threatening and assault not only, on Malaya but also humiliation to his family-members besides man-handling and threatening them. The suicidal note which was discovered by the Investigating Officer also attributed the abetment of suicide against three of the accused person (not the petitioner). During the course of investigation some of the witnesses alleged that on the date of assault on Malaya, the present petitioner was present at the spot along with the accused persons, participated in that occurrence by supporting them, instigating them and also interfering with the interference of the uncle and mother of Malaya when they came to his rescue. On completion of the investigation, charge sheet u/s 306/34, I. P. C. has been filed. Learned Counsel for the petitioner argued that since there is no allegation of physical assault by the petitioner on the said Malaya and when the suicidal note of Malaya does not implicate the petitioner as one of the persons responsible for his death, therefore a prima facie case for the offence punishable u/s. 306/34, I. P. C. is not made out against him. That is the substance of the argument advanced by the petitioner. That is the substance of the argument advanced by the petitioner. Learned Counsel for the petitioner further stated that the earlier application u/s. 482 of the Code was rejected as not pressed because there were some typographical errors in the said application. However, he failed to show what are those errors in the previous application filed u/s. 482, Cr. P. C. 3. It appears from the case record of Criminal Misc. Case No, 235 of 2000 that a memo was filed to not to press the application u/s. 482, Cr. P. C., but neither any leave was, sought for nor granted by this Court for fresh application u/s 482, Cr. P. C. while dismissing the previous application as not pressed as per order dated 7-3-2000. In view of that, this second application u/s. 482, Cr. P. C. is not entertainable and oh that ground alone the Criminal Misc. Case is liable to be dismissed. 4. Be that as it may, since this Court has heard argument on merit, notwithstanding the aforesaid observation of this Court, the prayer of the petitioner is considered on merit. On perusal of the Case Diary and the statements of the witnesses, there exists a prima facie case regarding participation of the petitioner in the assault and attack on Malaya which ultimately resulted in committing suicide by that Malaya. Therefore, mere absence of the name of the petitioner in the F. I. R, or in the suicidal note is of no advantage to him at this stage when he has been shown as an absconder in an old case of the year 1995 and has not yet participated in the proceeding in any manner whatsoever. It is true that in the absence of a prima facie case the persons need not be asked to go through the regular process by submitting to the jurisdiction of the S. D. J. M. and the Court of Sessions. But . at the same time existance of some allegations when makes out a prima facie case, it is not desirable for this Court to by pass the jurisdiction of the S. D. J. M. and the trial Court and to consider the matter on merit relating to discharge of the accused when there are ample provision in the Code to consider the redressal of the petitioner at the stage of consideration of charge. Under such circumstance, this Court finds that since there are some allegations against the petitioner which appears from the statements of few witnesses, this Court does not think it proper to invoke the inherent power and to quash the proceeding of G. R. Case No. 852 of 1995 against the petitioner at this stage. However, it is left open to the petitioner to approach the Courts below for seeking proper remedy at appropriate stage. Accordingly, the prayer to quash the proceeding of G. R. Case No. 852 of 1995 relating to the petitioner is found to be devoid of merit and the Criminal Misc. Case stands dismissed. 5. Before parting with the case, it may be observed that petitioner has been shown as an absconder in the charge sheet and Non-Bailable Warrant of Arrest is pending execution against him. If he shall surrender in the Court of S.D.J.M., Puri within a period of ten days hence and shall apply for bail then learned S. D. J. M. may do well to consider his bail application in accordance with law expeditiously. 6. Registry is directed to send back the L. C. R. to the Court below immediately and to ensure its reaching in the Court below within a week hence. 7. Crl. Misc. Case dismissed. Final Result : Dismissed