JUDGMENT :

S.K. SAHOO, J.

1. The petitioner Govinda Acharya has filed this application under section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code challenging the impugned order dated 20.07.2004 passed by the learned J.M.F.C., Khallikote in I.C.C. case No. 26 of 2004 in taking cognizance of the offences under sections 323, 294, 354, 506 of the Indian Penal Code read with section 3(1)(iii)(xi) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereafter ‘1989 Act’) and issuance of process against him.

2. The sole ground that has been taken by the learned counsel for the petitioner in challenging the impugned order is that, though the complainant-opposite party no.2 Rebati Nayak has named three witnesses in the complaint petition but during inquiry contemplated under section 202 of Cr.P.C., she has only examined two witnesses and since it is a case triable exclusively by the Court of Session and the mandates of the proviso to section 202(2) of Cr.P.C. have been flouted, therefore, the impugned order is not sustainable in the eye of law and it should be quashed and the matter be remanded to the learned Magistrate giving an opportunity to the complainant to examine th