JUDGMENT

L. MOHAPATRA, J. — This application under Sec. 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (‘the Code’, for short) has been filed for quashing the further investigation in Paradeep P.S.Case No. 162 of 1995, corresponding to G.R.Case No. 336 of 1998 pending in the Court of the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class (P), Ku¬jang.

2. The case of the petitioners is that petitioner No. 1 is the Managing Director of Orissa Stevedores Limited. Petitioner No. 2 is one of the Directors of the said Company and petitioner No. 3 is a Senior Executive working in the said Company. One Soumesh Chakravarty lodged FIR in Paradeep P.S. on 13.7.1995 stating that some unknown persons kidnapped one P.C.Das, opposite party No. 2, who is an Executive of M/s. J.M.Baxi and Co. while they were staying in Hotel Golden Anchor, Paradeep, in Room No. 104. On the basis of the said FIR, Paradeep P.S.Case No. 162/95 was regis¬tered for offences alleged to have been committed under Sec. 364/34, IPC and the corresponding G.R.Case No. 336 of 1995 was also registered in the Court of the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class (‘JMFC’ for short) at Kujang. After investigation, final report was submitted in the said case stating that there is no clue. The informant was given notice to file objection and despite several adjournments, since no objection was filed, the final report was accepted by the Court. After acceptance of the final report has been re-opened again for further investigation without obtaining permission of the Court and such further inves¬tigation is under challenge before this Court.

3. Shri Bijan Ray, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioners, submitted that one A. K. Sarangi who was working as Superintendent of Police, Jagatsinghpur, from 14.4.1995 to 20.7.1995 is instrumental in initiating further investigation into the matter maliciously and purposefully to harass the peti¬tioners. This submission of Shri Ray was vehemently opposed by the learned Additional Standing Counsel Shri Pradhan. In course of argument both the parties agreed that the only question of law that is required to be determined is as to whether for the pur¬pose of further investigation under Sec. 173 (8) of the Code, permission of the learned Magistrate is required or not. Admit¬tedly in the present case no permission has been obtained from the learned Magistrate while taking up further investigation or reopening the case for the purpose of further investigation. Before deciding the question as to whether permission is required or not, it is necessary to look into the background of the case and orders passed by the learned Magistrate.

4. As it appears from the record, FIR was lodged by one Soumesh Chakrabarty on 13.7.1995 in Paradeep Police Station that some unknown persons kidnapped one P.C.Das, opposite party No. 2, who was working as an Executive in M/s. J.M.Baxi and Co. while he was staying in Hotel Golden Anchor at Paradeep in room No. 104. On the basis of the said FIR, Paradeep P.S.Case No. 162 of 1995 for the offence alleged to have been committed under Sec. 364/34 of the Indian Penal Code was registered. Investigation was taken up thereafter and from the certified copy of the order-sheets in G.R.Case No. 336 of 1995 it appears that on 31.10.1996 final report was submitted by the investigating agency stating that there was no clue. Upon receipt of the said final form the learned Magistrate by order dated 31.10.1996 issued notice to the informant for filing objection and posted the case to 5.12.1996. On 5.12.1996 one Shri S.C.Das, Advocate, appeared on behalf of the informant and prayed for time to file objection. The case was again posted to 19.12.1996 for filing objection. Again on 19.12.1996 another petition was filed for adjournment by the Advocate appearing for the informant and the case was adjourned to 13.2.1997. On 13.2.1997 also no objection was filed and the learned Magistrate passed the following order :

“13.2.97 - The record is put up today