Research › Search › Judgment

Orissa High Court · body

2007 DIGILAW 70 (ORI)

Sripati Charan Sahu v. State of Orissa

2007-01-31

A.S.NAIDU

body2007
JUDGMENT A. S. NAIDU, J. The petitioner filed a complaint in the Court of S.D.J.M., Balasore which was registered as ICC Case No. 406 of 2006 alleging commission of offences under Sec. 294/323/395/506/34 IPC by the accused persons. The learned Magistrate, on perusal of the records and on being satisfied that the alleged offences are grievous in nature and required thorough investigation, by order dated 6.9.2006 directed to send the original complaint petition to the OIC concerned for its regis¬tration of an FIR in consonance with Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C., to carry on necessary investigation and report within seven days. It is alleged that in spite of receipt of the afore¬said order of the learned Magistrate, no action has yet been taken by the OIC being prevailed upon by the accused persons for which the petitioner was constrained to approach this Court. Thereafter it is stated that being aggrieved, the investigating agency registered a case for commission of offences under Secs. 341/447/323/379/294/506/34 IPC and has been carrying on the investigation. 2. Relyng on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Lallan Chaudhary and others v. State of Bihar and another : 2007 (I) OLR (SC) 100, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that once the complaint petition was forwarded to the police, it was not open to it to register a case for offences not spelt up in the complaint petition. It is stated that in the present case though offences under Secs. 294/323/395/506/34 IPC were allegedly committed, the investigating authority has lessened the gravity of the acquisition and registered to a case u/s 341/447/323/379/294/506/34 IPC. The learned AGA on the other hand submits that the Magistrate after due application of mind was satisfied that certain offences had allegedly been committed and referred the matter to the investi¬gating agency the investigating agency is bound to register the case in respect of the offences alleged to have been committed by the Magistrate. In the present case, as the Magistrate having not specified any offence, the investigating agency after going through the records, registered the case with regard to offences in his view, which were made out. 3. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State at length. In the present case, as the Magistrate having not specified any offence, the investigating agency after going through the records, registered the case with regard to offences in his view, which were made out. 3. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State at length. The order dated 6.9.2006 clearly reveals that the Magistrate felt that the alleged of¬fences, which means offences alleged in the complaint petition, were grievous in nature and required thorough investigation. Thus it cannot be said that the Magistrate did not mention the offences alleged to have been committed. In view of the aforesaid fact, registering the FIR for lesser offences was not just and proper. Be that as it may, it appears that though the investigation has been completed, final form has not been submitted and it is awaiting supervision by the higher officer. I, therefore, dispose of the writ petition directing the investigating officer to apply his mind to the allegations made in the complaint petition with regard to the offence spelt out in the complaint petition and make a thread bare enquiry and submit the final form strictly in consonance with law. The writ petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms. Petition disposed of.