The opinion formed by the investigating agency after investigation is final, but the Magistrate has the discretion to summon the accused if there are sufficient materials to show that an offence has been committed.

JUDGMENT :

A.K. Patnaik, J. - During July 1999 some local dailies reported about a sex racket in which a Physical Training Instructor of Balasore was luring young girls on false pretence for high officials. A letter dated 29.7.1999 relating to the incident was received by the then Acting Chief Justice of this Court from AB (name withheld) and the letter was registered as a writ petition bearing O.J.C. No. 9654 of 1999. In the said writ petition, the State of Orissa through the Secretary to Government of Orissa, Home Department and the Orissa State Commission for Women were impleaded as opposite parties No. 1 and 2 respectively. A counter affidavit was filed on behalf of the Orissa State Women Commission, but no counter affidavit was filed on behalf of the State of Orissa, Home Department. Thereafter the said writ petition was heard and by order dated 24.8.1999 the Court closed the matter after considering the report of the Orissa State Women Commission. Thereafter, a fresh writ petition O.J.C. No. 12461 of 1999 was filed by one Dr. Suprava Kumari Das of Balasore, a social activist, for a direction to the concerned authorities to complete the investigation and submit a charge sheet against those involved in the incident, Yet, another writ petition O.J.C. No. 13305 of 1999 was filed by Sri Prasanta Kumar Das praying for a direction to the Central Bureau of Investigation (for short, "the CBI") to register a case and take up the investigation into the alleged Balasore sex scandal. In a common order dated 9.5.2000 passed in the aforesaid three petitions, the Court held that in consideration of all the materials brought on record which were not earlier placed before the Courts at the time of hearing of O.J.C. No. 9654 of 1999, closing of the matter and not ordering an inquiry into the Balasore sex scandal would not be in the public interest. In the said order dated 9.5.2000, the Court found that despite the statement made by the Chief Minister on the floor of the Assembly that an F.I.R. shall be registered and despite a direction by the Home Secretary to that effect, an F.I.R. had not been registered and the inquiry report revealed that some high officials appeared to have been involved and accordingly directed that the matter be investigated by an independent agency, namely, the CBI.

2. Pursuant to the said order dated 9.5.2000 of the Court, the C.B.I registered a case No. RC-/S/2000-Cal and took up investigation of the case and submitted status reports from time to time. After the investigation was completed, the CBI filed a final status report (hereinafter referred to as "the first final status report") stating therein that charge sheet has already been filed in the Court of the Additional C.J.M. -cum- Special C.J.M., Bhubaneswar against three accused persons, Srimati Prabasini Kar, Sri Susanta Kumar Mohapatra and Dr. Sidhartha Patra but no evidence directly linking Sri Prasanta Kumar Nayak or any other person to the offences under investigation has come on record and investigation has therefore been concluded. On 7.3.2003, the Court passed orders recorded in the order sheet of O.J.C. No. 9456 of 1999 that the CBI can file the charge sheet before the appropriate Court and if any objection is to be taken, the same can be done before the concerned Court in terms of Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

3. The petitioner in O.J.C. No. 13305 of 1999 Sri Prasanta Kumar Das then filed Misc. Case Nos. 689 and 690 of 2003. In Misc. Case No. 689 of 2003, the said petitioner prayed for modification of the aforesaid order dated 7.3.2003 and in Misc. Case No. 690 of 2003, the said petitioner prayed for stay of operation of the said order dated 7.3.2003. The CBI filed its counter to the misc cases and after hearing the counsel for the petitioner and the CBI, the Court passed orders dated 25.4,2003 modifying the order dated 7.3.2003. Paragraphs 8 and 9 of the said order dated 25.4.2003 passed in Misc. Case Nos. 689 and 690 of 2003 are qu