The main legal point established in the judgment is the independence of the complaint case from the G.R. Case and the necessity to proceed with commitment proceedings early. The interpretation of Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and the consideration of evidence during trial also played a crucial role in the court's decision.

JUDGMENT :

L. Mohapatra, J. - Criminal Misc. Case No. 2324 of 1993 has been filed by two of the accused persons praying for quashing the order dated 15.11.1992 passed by the learned S.D.J.M. Patnagarh in I.C.C. No. 37 of 1992 taking cognizance of offence alleged to be committed under Sections 148/302/307/323/435/149 of the Penal Code read with Section 25 of the Arms Act and issuing non-bailable warrant of arrest against the aforesaid two accused persons. Criminal Misc. Case No. 2284/93 has been filed by one of the accused persons praying for quashing the same order passed in the aforesaid complaint case as well as the proceeding in the complaint case itself. Criminal Revision No. 37 of 1994 has been filed by the informant/complainant praying for setting aside the order dated 3.1.94 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Bolangir rejecting the prayer of the Petitioner for issuing process against the aforesaid accused persons in exercise of power u/s 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to face trial. All the above three cases arise out of the same incident and therefore all the cases were heard together and are-disposed of in this common judgment.

2. Before entering into the facts alleged in each case it is necessary to refer to the allegations giving rise to the aforesaid three cases. An F.I.R. was lodged by one Gopalji Panigrahi on 29.5.1992 before the O.I.C., Patnagarh police station alleging therein that he along with one Ashok Rout. Prasant Subudhi and Ors. had gone to Khaparapol for election campaign. At about 1.25. in the night near village Barthala accused Bibek Meher along with Ors. came in six vehicles and stopped the vehicle in which the aforesaid Gopalji Panigrahi and Ors. were moving. It is further alleged that accused persons abused in filthy language and suddenly fired at them as a result of which the informant and his friend Prasant Kumar Subudhi received, bullet injuries. Later on it was found that Anr. person namely Pradip Singh Deo who also received bullet injuries succumbed to the injuries. After investigation into the aforesaid case charge-sheet was submitted against ten accused persons. No charge-sheet had been submitted against the Petitioners in Crl. Misc. Case No. 2324/93 namely Bibekananda Meher ' Sibek Meher and Manoj Kumar Meher alias Manoj Meher as well as the Petitioner in Crl. Misc. Case No. 2284/93 namely Promod Kumar Mishra. The said F.I.R. was registered as G.R. Case No. 101/92 in the Court of the learned S.D.J.M. Patnagarh which was committed to the Court of Session and was registered as sessions Case No. 35/10 of 1993.

3. The informant Gopalji Panigrahi filed I.C.C. Case No. 37 of 1992 in the Court of the learned S.D.J.M. Patnagarh against several accused persons including the above three Petitioners against whom charge-sheet had not been filed, alleging therein that the above named three accused persona were amongst other accused persons who committed offence and that the investigation was not done properly and the aforesaid three accused persons had not been charge-sheeted by the police.

On the basis of the complaint learned Magistrate took cognizance by order dated 15.11.93 which is the subject-matter of challenge in the aforesaid two criminal misc. cases. After commitment of the G.R. Cases to the Court of Session and after examination of some witnesses during trial an application was filed on behalf of the informant to issue process against the aforesaid three above named accused persons on the ground that the evidence collected during trial clearly proves the existence of prima facie case against them. The said petition having been rejected by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge. Criminal Revision No. 37 of 1994 has been filed challenging the said order.

4. Sri Narasingh Mishra, learned Counsel appearing for the two of the above named accused persons who are Petitioners in Criminal Misc. Case No. 2324/93 challenged the Court taking cognizance in the complaint case basically on the ground t