AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
No AI summary yet
Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.
Judgment
6 paragraphs · 411 wordsA.S. Naidu, J.—Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the opposite parties.
This is an application u/s 482 of Cr. P.C. invoking inherent jurisdiction of this Court inter alia quashing the Order dated 10.7.2003 passed by the learned S.D.J.M., Khurda in I.C.C. No. 52 of 2003 taking cognizance of the offences u/s 436, 506, 427 and 34 of I.P.C. against eight accused persons.
Mr. Sahoo, learned counsel for the petitioners, submits that for self-same cause of action, the complainant had filed an F.I.R. before the O.I.C., Khurda P.S. on the basis of which, G.R. Case No. 1030 of 2002 has been registered. According to Mr. Sahoo, investigation of the said case is neither over nor any final report has been submitted. Mr. Sahoo further submits that the Court below acted illegally in taking cognizance of the offences alleged to have committed by the petitioners, in I.C.C. No. 52 of 2003 without following the mandatory provisions of Section 210 of Cr. P.C. In support of his contention, the decision in the case of Rabi Naik and Ors. v. Baula Dei and Anr., reported in (2003) 24 OCR 742 was relied upon.
In the said reported case, this Court held that the learned Magistrate should have called for a report from the Police before proceeding in the complaint case in consonance with provision of Section 210 of Cr. P.C.
After hearing learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the State and after perusing the materials available, I dispose of this case directing the S.D.J.M., Khurda to ascertain as to whether the complaint case i.e. I.C.C. No. 52 of 2003 and the G.R. Case No. 1030 of 2002 arise out of the one and same occurrence. If the Magistrate is satisfied that the cause of action for both the cases was one and that the investigation by the Police is in progress in relation to the offence alleged to have been committed in G.R. Case, then the Magistrate shall stay his hands so far as the proceeding in I.C.C. No. 52 of 2003 and wait till Final Form is received from the Police. On the other hand, if the learned S.D.J.M., Khurda feels that the cause of action for the complaint case and the G.R. Case are different, it would be open for him to proceed with the trial of the complaint case.
With the aforesaid observations, this Crl. Misc. Case is disposed of.