JUDGMENT :

S.K. Sahoo, J.

The petitioner in this application under section 482 Cr.P.C. has challenged the impugned order dated 29.12.2011 passed by the learned S.D.J.M., Sambalpur in G.R. Case No. 1274 of 2011 in taking cognizance of the offences punishable under sections 294/506 of the Indian Penal Code and issuance of process against him. The said case arises out of Burla P.S. Case No. 123 of 2011.

2. One Animesh Nandan Sahay (opp. party no.2), Chairman -cum-Managing Director, Mahanadi Coal fields Limited, Burla, Sambalpur lodged the F.I.R. before the Inspector in charge, Burla police station, Burla on 12.07.2011 stating therein that on 30.06.2011 at about 4.30 p.m. while he was sitting in his office at MCL Headquarters, Burla, he received a telephone call in his landline phone bearing no. 0663-2542855 from one mobile phone no. 9432122136 and the caller introduced himself as M.L.A. Mr. Sujit Basu, Salt Lake Area from Trinamool Congress. The caller asked the informant with strong words to retain the petitioner who was working as Senior Manager (Excavation) at M.C.L. Office, Kolkata on temporary basis and then the caller started abusing the informant and also threatened him with dire consequences. The caller further told the informant that he would see and finish him during later’s visit to Kolkata if the petitioner is disturbed from Kolkata. It is further stated in the F.I.R. that subsequently the informant talked with Mr. Sujit Basu, M.L.A. who clarified that he had never talked with the informant and gave his mobile phone number which was 9833053347. The informant during conversation with Mr. Sujit Basu, M.L.A. recognized that it was not the voice of the same person who had talked with him on 30.06.2011. He gathered information that the mobile phone number 9432122136 which was used in threatening him belonged to one Subrat Kumar Saha. It is further mentioned in the first information report that the petitioner impersonated himself as M.L.A. of West Bengal and threatened the informant.

3. On the basis of such F.I.R., Burla P.S. Case No. 123 of 2011 was registered on 12.07.2011 under sections 294/506 of the Indian Penal Code against the petitioner. During course of investigation, the informant was examined and the Investigating Officer visited the spot, seized the office telephone cordless handset on production by the informant and left it in the zima of the informant and also seized certain documents and prepared seizure lists and after completion of investigation, submitted charge sheet on 24.12.2011 under sections 294/506 of the Indian Penal Code.

On perusal of the chargesheet, the learned S.D.J.M., Sambalpur found prima facie evidence against the petitioner regarding commission of offences under sections 294 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code and accordingly passed the impugned order.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner Mr. Satyabrata Pradhan while challenging the impugned order dated 29.12.2011 contended that the investigation has been conducted in a perfunctory manner and the basic ingredients of the offences under sections 294/506 of the Indian Penal Code are not attracted. He further contended that there is inordinate delay in lodging the first information report and the material witnesses have not been examined and the call details from the concerned mobile phone or the landline phone have not been seized during course of investigation and it has not been established as to how the owner of the mobile phone from which threatening words came to the informant is in any way related to the petitioner. It is further contended that merely on assumption and surmise, the F.I.R. was lodged and therefore, the submission of charge sheet as well as taking of cognizance is not sustainable in the eye of law.

Mr. Dillip Kumar Mishra, learned Addl. Govt. Advocate on the other hand submitted that the statement of the informant as noted in the case diary reveals prima facie case and the call details of the mobile phone number 9432122136 is ava