JUDGMENT

B. P. DAS, J. — As both the Criminal Revision and the Criminal Misc. Case arise out of the same case i.e. ICC Case No. 61 of 1995, they were heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment.

2. The Criminal Revision is directed against the order 29.8.1997 passed by the learned J.M.F.C., Cuttack in ICC Case No. 61 of 1995 rejecting the application of the accused-petitioner praying for furnishing him copies of the documents, namely; (i) statements recorded under Secs. 200 and 202, Cr.P.C. of all persons examined by the Magistrate, (ii) the statement on confes¬sion with any statement recorded under Secs. 161 or 164, Cr.P.C., and (iii) any document produced before the Magistrate on which the prosecution proposes to rely.

3. The Criminal Misc. Case has been filed with a prayer to quash the order dated 24.4.1996 passed in ICC Case No. 51 of 1995 taking cognizance of the offence under Secs. 448, 294, 352, 363, 342, 323, 324, 384/34, IPC against the petitioner and the entire proceeding initiated in the said complaint case.

4. The Criminal Misc. Case being for quashing the entire proceeding, the same was heard alongwith the Criminal Revision which has been filed challenging the order dated 29.8.1997 refus¬ing the prayer of the petitioner to supply certain documents. It is profitable to examine first whether or not there is any cogent ground to quash the entire proceeding because in case this Court ultimately comes to the conclusion that the entire proceeding is liable to be quashed, then there may not be any need to examine the questions raised in the Criminal Revision.

5. Let me now examine whether there is any material to allow the prayer of the petitioner so made in Criminal Misc. Case No. 4376 of 1996.

6. The Criminal Misc. Case has been filed under Sec. 482, Cr.P.C. by the petitioner, who is a Sub-Inspector of Police and at the relevant time was attached to Bidanasi Police Station against whom proceeding has been initiated in ICC Case No. 61 of 1995 wherein by order dated 24.4.1996, the learned S.D.J.M. (S), Cuttack has taken cognizance of the offence under Secs. 448, 294, 352, 363, 342, 323, 324, 384/34, IPC and issued processes against the petitioner as well as opp. parties 2 and 3, who are also the police officers.

7. The brief facts, as it reveals from the impugned order dated 24.4.1996 passed in ICC No. 61 of 1995, are that opp. party No. 1, the complainant alleged that on 14.3.1995 at about 11.30 p.m. the present petitioner alongwith opp. parties 2 and 3, who are also police officers attached to Bidanasi Police Station came to the quarter of the complainant and enquired about his son Lokanath. As the complainant wanted to know why his son was re¬quired by him, it is alleged that the petitioner without disclos¬ing the reason directed the complainant to come with his son to the police station. However, later on it was disclosed by the petitioner that the son of the complainant was wanted in a theft case to give evidence and would be interrogated to which the complainant and his wife replied that as their son Lokanath was sleeping he would go to the police station only on the next day. Hearing this, the accused made an attempt to trespass into the house of the complainant and abused the complainant’s wife in most filthy languages. Further, it is alleged by the complainant that the accused forcibly entered inside the house, brought his son by giving him push upto the police jeep. Thereafter, it was found that Bibhu Prasad, a friend of Lokanath had also been brought by the petitioner and he was sitting inside the police jeep. Ultimately they were taken to Bidanasi Police Station and were wrongfully confined. At about 12.30 a.m. on 14/15.3.1995 one Dipak Kumar Pradhan was also brought to the police station by the petitioner and all the three boys were detained in the police station where they were mercilessly assaulted by the petitioner. Seeing this, the complainant-opp. party No. 1 who followed his son to