JUDGMENT

B.K. Patel, J.

1. This revision is directed against the impugned order dated 4.1.2012 passed by the learned S.D.J.M., Bhubaneswar rejecting petitioner's application under Section 245(2) of the Cr.P.C. to discharge him of the accusation of commission of offences under Sections 120-B/427/506 of the Indian Penal Code (for short the 'I.P.C.') in I.C.C. No. 4641 of 2008 instituted by the opposite party complainant against the petitioner and another co-accused. The complainant is power of attorney holder and grand-father of one Pradipta Kumar Mohanty. It is alleged in the complaint petition that Pradipta Kumar Mohanty purchased the disputed land on the strength of registered sale deed dated 18.4.1989 and is in possession by constructing boundary wall around the same. On 16.11.2007 said Pradipta Kumar Mohanty executed a registered power of attorney in favour of the complainant. On the date of occurrence, i.e., on 2.11.2008 evening, the complainant came to know that some persons were preparing to demolish the boundary wall. He along with others went there and found the co-accused along with seven to eight labour class people and five to six persons wearing uniform like security guards demolishing boundary wall using Crowbar and Gainthi etc. and removing the laterite stones from the spot by tractor. On protest raised by the complainant, persons wearing uniform told that they were security guards of the petitioner and the petitioner had instructed them to demolish the boundary wall. Co-accused instructed the workers to finish the demolition work quickly and he also joined the workers in demolishing the wall. Co accused also threatened that if anybody obstructed them, they would kill him. It is alleged that the petitioner was monitoring the illegal acts of demolition of wall, removal of stones and intimidation over telephone which the complainant overheard from the co-accused. Out of fear, the complainant left the spot and lodged report at Khandagiri Police Station. As there was no action on the complainant's report, the complainant filed complaint petition alleging commission of offences under Sections 109, 427, 379, 506 and 431 read with 34 of the I.P.C. against the petitioner and the co-accused. After recording of the initial statement of the complainant and enquiry under Section 202 of the Cr.P.C., in course of which two witnesses were examined, cognizance of commission of offences under Sections 427, 506 and 120-B of the I.P.C. was taken.

2. Sri S.K. Padhi, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioner submitted that admittedly there is no allegation against the petitioner to have committed any overt physical act towards commission of any offence. It is not alleged that the petitioner was present at the spot. The petitioner is sought to be implicated with the commission of offences under Section 427 and 506 of the I.P.C. with the aid of allegation under Section 120-B of the I.P.C. on the basis of vague allegation that the co-accused along with labourers and security guards have committed the offences under Section 427 and 506 of the I.P.C. on being instructed by the petitioner. It was vehemently argued that there is no material on record to indicate petitioner's complicity with the alleged occurrence. It was pointed out that while rejecting petitioner's application under Section 245(2) of the Cr.P.C., learned S.D.J.M., Bhubaneswar has referred simply to the statement of the co-accused to have been instructed by the petitioner to demolish the boundary wall. Even if such allegation is taken on its face value, statement of the co-accused cannot form the basis of framing of charge. It was argued that statement of the co-accused cannot be converted or translated into evidence in course of trial. It was further contended that materials on record do not indicate any motive on the part of the petitioner for committing the alleged offences. As to whether there exists sufficient ground for framing of charge against the accused a