SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2005 Supreme(Ori) 79

2005 (I) OLR — 623
I. M. QUDDUSI, J.
Hada Naik and others... Petitioners
Versus
Abhaya Naik... Opp. Party
Crl.Misc. Case No.1917 of 2004
Decided on 25th January, 2005.

Advocates:
For Petitioners:M/s. Prasanna Kumar Mishra and S. K. Dash
For Opp.Party:Addl. Govt. Advocate

Headnote:CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE, 1973 - Secs. 200, 202, 482 - Quashing processes issued - Statement of complainant was recorded under Sec. 200, Cr.P.C. - Date was fixed for recording evidence under Sec. 202, Cr.P.C. - Magistrate did not think it proper to proceed against the accused-petitioners and hence he had postponed issue of process and directed to record statement under Sec. 202, Cr.P.C. - Once the Magistrate had made up his mind for postponement of issue of process against the accused-petitioners and directed to record statement under Sec. 202, Cr.P.C., it was not open for him to issue process against the accused-petitioner on the application/memo filed on behalf of the complainant that not to adduce evidence under Sec. 202, Cr.P.C. without making or concluding such enquiry - Summoning orders against petitioners not sustainable in the eye of law. (Paras - 7 and 8)

JUDGMENT

I. M. QUDDUSI, J. — No one appears for the opposite party in spite of service of notice on him.

2. By means of this petition filed u/s. 482, Cr.P.C., petitioner has prayed for quashing of the impugned order dated 5.7.2004 passed by the learned S.D.J.M., Dhenkanal in I.C.C. No.95 of 2004 and also for quashing processes issued against the petitioners.

3. The brief fact of the case are that the complaint was filed before the learned S.D.J.M., Dhenkanal by the opposite party against the petitioners on the allegation that :-

(a) the petitioner is a poor Harijan and having no landed property of his own resides with his family by constructing a residential house over one Govt. Plot like other co-villagers since last 10 years., Whereas the accused persons are also resid¬ing in the same village on Govt. Land which is situated just after one house from that of complainant.

(b) the accused persons are goonda, rowdy and antisocial in nature and seriously threatening the complainant to leave the place with family or else they will finish the entire family and ruin in the house.

(c) on the date of occurrence there was also disturbance between the parties and in broad day light the accused Champa threatened to set fire in the house.

(d) at about 1.00 A.M. on the date of occurrence when the com¬plainant and other family members were sleeping by opening the door due to severe heat, the accused came jointly and the accused No.1dragged the wife of the complainant and gave slap to the cheek and back of his wife and when his wife raised hulla, all the male accused persons No.1 to 4 entered into the house and started assaulting by hand and foot to my person and my wife. And at that time the only lady accused Champa Naik by help of match box and stick, fired the roof of my house and as a result the house began burning with light and then all the accused persons started running from my house and we raised further hulla saying “Ghar Nian Lagei Champa Paleigala Dhain Asa”, then some people of our locality gathered and one Barina Naik telephoned to the Fire Office at Dhenkanal, who entered within one house and helped the local people to extinguish the fire and when the fire was controlled the entire house and assets were ruined.

(e) on the next day I went to the R.I. Kenkadapal at Rathagada, Dhenkanal to inform him and then to Fire office to take the report who assured to give the report after 8 days.

(f) then opp.party proceeded to the Sadar P.S. and intimated the fact in writing and the Police stated that before him, the ac¬cused No.2 and 5 (petitioner Nos.2 and 5) jointly had been to the P.S. and reported against him. They also assured to take steps and investigated the matter. After enquiry they remained silent and till date no action has been taken against the accused persons. Hence delay in filing the complaint.

(g) due to overt act of the accused persons (petitioners), the only residence of the house is lost a sum of Rs.5,000/- has been burnt down which was kept by the complainant by incurring loan for his business in cattle the household articles, even clothes have also been burnt.”

4. The complaint was filed on 2.7.2004 and the learned S.D.J.M. ordered thereon to put up on 5.7.2004 with the office. On 5.7.2004 the following order was passed by the learned S.D.J.M. :-

“Perused the office note. The complaint petition filed is in order. Perused the complaint petition which is filed alleging offences punishable u/s 448/436/506/354/34 of the I.P.C. Cogni¬zance is taken. Put up on 9.7.04 for S.A.

Sd/-B. K. Mishra 5.7.04

S.D.J.M., Dkl”

Thereafter the matter was taken up on 9.7.2004 on which date complainant’s statement was recorded u/s. 200, Cr.P.C. and it was ordered to put up on 13.7.2004 for evidence u/s. 202, Cr.P.C.

The order dated 9.7.2004 is quoted as under:

“Complainant is present. His statement is recorded on S.A. Put up on 13.7.04 for evidence u/s. 202, Cr.P.C.

Sd/- B. K. Mishra 9.7.04

S.D.J.M.”

Thereafter when




























Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

SupremeToday

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top