Research › Search › Judgment

Orissa High Court · body

2001 DIGILAW 508 (ORI)

Jhumpa Panigrahi v. Tanu Gouda

2001-11-16

P.K.TRIPATHY

body2001
ORDER 16.11.2001 — Learned counsel for the petitioners files certi¬fied copy of the orders in E.P. No. 6 of 1996 and the correspond¬ences made in that proceeding besides the reports of the process server. It be kept on record. 2. Heard. 3. This application under Section 482, Cr.P.C., is disposed of at the stage of admission after hearing learned counsel for the petitioners in as much as the opposite party/complainant after receipt of the notice has not entered appearance. 4. Petitioners are the accused persons in ICC No. 59 of 1998 in the Court of the J.M.F.C., Aska. Opposite party instituted the aforesaid complaint alleging the offences under Sections 448/380/395/354/294/325/427/506/34, I.P.C., with the allegations that on 11.8.1998 accused persons demolished her dwelling house and removed the household articles by use of force. On perusal of the statement in support thereof learned S.D.J.M. found existence of a prima facie case and on 1.11.2000 took cognizance of the offences under Sections 427/506/34, I.P.C. after conducting en¬quiry under Section 202, Cr.P.C. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners states that peti¬tioner No. 4 (accused No. 5) was then working as Sub-Inspector of Police in Pattapur Police Station and other petitioners are the legal representatives being the wife and children of the original decree-holder late Ranka Panigrahi. Learned counsel for the petitioners further states that after obtaining a decree against the complainant’s family an application for execution of the decree under Order 21 of the Code of Civil Procedure was filed which was registered as Execution Petition No. 6 of 1996 in the Court of the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Aska, and when the writ of delivery of possession could not be executed due to the resistance given by the complainant and her family members, therefore, on the report of the process server learned Civil Judge passed order for police protection and requested the Super¬intendent of Police accordingly and that is why petitioner No. 4 was at the spot along with the process server for due execution of the writ of delivery of possession. Learned counsel for the petitioners in that respect has filed the certified copy of the order sheet as well as the report of the process server, corre¬spondence made between the Civil Judge (Jr. Division) and the Superintendent of Police for providing police protection and the report after execution of the writ of delivery of possession. Learned counsel for the petitioners in that respect has filed the certified copy of the order sheet as well as the report of the process server, corre¬spondence made between the Civil Judge (Jr. Division) and the Superintendent of Police for providing police protection and the report after execution of the writ of delivery of possession. In support of the aforesaid contention, he further argues that suppressing all such facts and circumstances complainant made the allegations in furtherance of the aforesaid offences. He further argues that at this stage since learned Magistrate has no juris¬diction to refer to such public records to dispose of the crimi¬nal proceeding at its threshold, therefore, in the ends of jus¬tice this Court may invoke the inherent power and quash the proceeding of ICC No. 59 of 1998. After perusal of the aforesaid documents and on considera¬tion of the aforesaid contentions of the petitioners, this Court finds that indeed the complaint suffers from vexatious allega¬tions as a result of notorious move made by the complainant to harass the petitioners when the petitioners took action as al¬leged, for executing the writ of delivery of possession. Under such circumstances with due reference to the documents from the public record this Court finds that non-interference with the order of cognizance will result in abuse of the process of Court. Accordingly invoking the inherent power, the criminal proceeding in ICC Case No. 59 of 1998 of the Court of the J.M.F.C. Aska, stands quashed. The Crl. Misc. Case is allowed accordingly. Crl.Misc. Case allowed.