A cognizance of an offence under IPC requires clear evidence of commission; mere speculative involvement or prevention of extinguishing fire does not constitute the requisite elements of the offence.

JUDGMENT :

G. Satapathy, J.

1. Aggrieved by the order passed on 30.11.2015 in C.T. Case No.186 of 2011 by which the learned S.D.J.M., Rairakhol took cognizance of offence U/S.436 of IPC , the petitioner has invoked the jurisdiction of this Court U/S.482 of Cr.P.C. to quash the aforesaid order taking cognizance of offence U/S. 436 of the I.P.C.

2. The relevant facts in precise are that on 21.03.2011 at about 9 P.M. in the night, the house of one Rajkishore Pradhan of village Uparamunda was found burning and due to prior landed dispute with his four brothers, Rajkishore Pradhan suspected the involvement of his four brothers for setting his house on fire and accordingly, he lodged an FIR before the IIC, Kisinda P.S. against his four brothers namely, Gobardhan Pradhan, Ajit Pradhan, Ashok Pradhan and Bikram Pradhan, which was registered vide Kisinda P.S. Case No.03 of 2011 with commencement of investigation by the S.I. of Police, Sarbeswar Samantaray who after conducting the investigation submitted final report as no clue. Pursuant to such final report, the learned S.D.J.M., Rairakhol issued notice to the informant who filed a protest petition in the shape of complaint in C.T. Case No.186 of 2011 in which the initial statement of the complainant U/S.200 of Cr.P.C. and substance of inquiry of witnesses U/S.202 of Cr.P.C. were recorded. In the ultimate appraisal of the complaint together with initial statement of the complainant and substance of inquiry of witnesses U/S.202 of Cr.P.C. and finding a prima facie case, learned S.D.J.M., Rairakhol by the impugned order took cognizance of offence U/S.436 of IPC and issued process against the petitioner only. Hence, this CRLMC by the petitioner.

3. In the course of hearing the CRLMC, learned counsel for the petitioner by taking through the averments of FIR, complaint and the initial statement of the complainant, submits that the petitioner has never set the house of the informant on fire and the only inference against the petitioner for quizzing others by saying as to “why they were dousing the fire, when the informant has himself set his house on fire”, is forthcoming and, therefore, no offence U/S.436 of IPC is attracted against the petitioner. It is accordingly, prayed to quash the impugned order taking cognizance of offence U/S. 436 of I.P.C. and issuing of process against the petitioner.

4. On the contrary, learned counsel appearing for the opposite party no.2 submits that although it is not found from the record as to who had set the house of the informant on fire but the statement of the complainant and other witnesses as well as the FIR would go to show that the petitioner was preventing others from dousing the fire set to the house of informant which by itself constitute an offence U/S.436 of IPC and therefore, the present application U/S.482 of Cr.P.C. is not maintainable and liable to be dismissed and the learned Court by the impugned order having taken cognizance of offence on proper consideration of materials on record with sound discretion of judicial mind needs no interference by this Court. It is accordingly prayed to dismiss the CRLMC.

5. On bestowing a careful consideration to the rival submissions, the questions crop up for consideration in the CRLMC are whether the initial statement of complainant together with the statement of witnesses on given facts of the complaint disclose commission of offence U/S.436 of IPC or any other offence and there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the petitioner. In other words, whether there is prima facie case against the petitioner for commission of offence U/S.436 of .