Research › Search › Judgment

Orissa High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 883 (ORI)

Bimbadhar Nath v. State of Orissa

2016-09-28

S.K.SAHOO

body2016
JUDGMENT : S.K. SAHOO, J. The petitioners in this application under section 482 Cr.P.C. have challenged the order dated 6.12.2007 passed by the learned S.D.J.M., Bhadrak in I.C.C. Case No. 282 of 2007 in taking cognizance of offences punishable under sections 294/323/379/506/452/34 of the Indian Penal Code and issuance of process against them. 2. The opposite party No.2 Padmanav Nath filed a complaint petition before the learned S.D.J.M., Bhadrak against the petitioners, on the basis of which I.C.C. Case No.182 of 2007 was instituted. The initial statement of the complainant Padmanav Nath was recorded and during course of inquiry under section 202 Cr.P.C., two witnesses were examined. The learned Magistrate on perusal of the complaint petition, initial statement of the complainant, statements of witnesses recorded under section 202 Cr.P.C. found prima facie materials against the petitioners for commission of offences under sections 294, 323, 379, 506, 452 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and accordingly, took cognizance of such offences. 3. None appears on behalf of the petitioners. On perusal of the grounds taken in the application under section 482 Cr.P.C., it appears that the order of cognizance and issuance of process was challenged mainly on the ground that even accepting the entire case of the complainant, the ingredients of offences are not attracted and that earlier one FIR was lodged against the petitioners for which the complaint petition was falsely instituted. 4. On perusal of the complaint petition as well as the statement of the complainant recorded under section 200 Cr.P.C. and the statements of the witnesses recorded under section 202 Cr.P.C. I find that the allegations against petitioner No.4 Smt. Urbasi Nath, petitioner No.5 Smt. Kumudini Nath, petitioner No.6 Smt. Susama Nath and petitioner No.7 Smt. Anjali Nath are vague and no specific overt act has been alleged against any of those petitioners. Therefore, I am of the view that continuance of the criminal proceeding against the aforesaid four lady accused persons is not proper and therefore, invoking my inherent power under section 482 Cr.P.C. and to prevent abuse of process, I am inclined to quash the criminal proceeding and issuance of process against the petitioner Nos.4, 5, 6 and 7. So far as the petitioner no. So far as the petitioner no. 1 Bimbadhar Nath, petitioner No.2 Ajaya Kumar Nath and petitioner 3 Akashya Kumar Nath are concerned, specific overt act has been attributed against them not only in the complaint petition but also in the statement recorded under section 200 Cr.P.C. as well as statements recorded during inquiry and therefore, I am not inclined to quash the criminal proceeding against petitioner Nos.1, 2 and 3. Accordingly, the CRLMC is allowed in part. The criminal proceeding in I.C.C. Case No.282 of 2007 pending in the Court of learned S.D.J.M., Bhadrak in respect of petitioner No.4 Smt. Urbasi Nath, petitioner No.5 Smt. Kumudini Nath, petitioner No.6 Smt. Susama Nath and petitioner No.7 Smt. Anjali Nath stands quashed. However, such proceeding against petitioner no. 1 Bimbadhar Nath, petitioner No.2 Ajaya Kumar Nath and petitioner 3 Akashya Kumar Nath shall continue. The CRLMC application is accordingly disposed of.