JUDGMENT

B. K. NAYAK, J.

The petitioner in this application under Section 482, Cr. P.C. challenges the order dated 12.04.2010 passed by the learned J.M.F.C., Jajpur Road in I.C.C. Case No. 59 of 2010 taking cognizance of the offences under Sections 323/294/506 of the IPC and directing issuance of process against the petitioner.

2. Opposite party No. 2, who was the Secretary of the Jajpur Road Bar Association, filed a complaint before the learned J.M.F.C., Jajpur Road against the present petitioner with the allegations that on 24.10.2007 he had addressed a letter to accused-petitioner, who was the Managing Director of IFCAL, Jajpur Road and gave the same to the P.A. of the petitioner. In order to discuss with the petitioner about the subject matter of the aforesaid letter, the complainant along with the witnesses went to the office of the petitioner on 31.10.2007 at about 12.30 P.M. after getting appointment and when they started discussing about the subject matter of the letter given earlier, the petitioner suddenly got angry and asked the complainant to vacate his office or else he would be forced to get them out. When the complainant protested against such action, the petitioner again asked him to leave the place immediately or else he would kill the complainant by firing, and so saying the petitioner stood up from his chair and gave a push on the chest of the complainant and asked his Darwan (door keeper) to drive the complainant and his companions out of the gate and again abused them saying "SALA OKILA DAKHEIHEUCHU MORA HIGH COURT JUDGE SABU SANGA JAA MORA KANA TADIBA KANA KARIPAKEBA".

3. The complaint petition was forwarded by the learned J.M.F.C. to the local police station for registration of FIR and accordingly Jajpur Road P.S. Case No. 150 dated 03.11.2007 was registered. After investigation the police submitted a final report, whereupon the complainant filed a protest petition on the basis of which his statement under Section 200, Cr.P.C. was recorded. The J.M.F.C., conducted enquiry and by the impugned order took cognizance of the offences under Sections 323/294/506 of the IPC.

4. During the course of hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner challenges the order bf cognizance only in respect of offence under Section 294 of the IPC on the ground that even assuming the allegations of abuse etc. to be true, the place of occurrence is the office room of the petitioner, which is not a 'public place’ prima facie commission of offence under Section 294 of the IPC cannot be said to have been made out and hence no cognizance thereof could have been taken.

The learned counsel appearing for opposite party No.2 submits that for opening of a new Court of Senior Civil Judge at Jajpur Road, on the request of Jajpur Road Bar Association and the Collector, Jajpur, the predecessor-in-office of the petitioner had agreed to spare a quarters of his Company for occupation of the Presiding Officer of the proposed Court and in connection therewith a letter had been given to the petitioner through his P.A, and in order to discuss about the aforesaid matter the complainant and sortie members of the Bar went to the office of the petitioner, when the occurrence took place. It is submitted by him that the office of the petitioner must be held to be a public place and, therefore, cognizance of the offence under Section 294 of the IPC has been rightly taken.

5. The sole question, therefore, is whether the office room of the Managing Director of the Company, Indian Ferro-Chrome and Alloys Limited (IFCAL), which is a Public Limited Company, is a 'public place' or not.

A public place is any place which is open to the use and enjoyment of the public, whether it is actually used or enjoyed by the public or not.

In the decision reported in AIR 1961 Gujarat 192; State v. Dohana Jamnadas and others, a division bench of Gujarat High Court had laid down the following test for ascertaining whether a place is a public place or not.

The test of a place being a p