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
4 paragraphs · 197 wordsA.S. Naidu, J.—Heard.
Invoking inherent jurisdiction of this Court u/s 482 CrPC, the petitioner seeks to assail the order dated 25.4.2006 passed by the SDJM, Bhawanipatna in 2(a) CC No. 9 of 2006. By the said order the Court below has taken cognizance of offences under Sections 33A and 125A of the R.P. Act, 1951 and u/s 177 of IPC. According to the learned Counsel for the petitioner the limitation for taking cognizance of the aforesaid offences having grossly barred, the Court below could not have taken cognizance thereof.
Be that as it may, a perusal of the impugned order reveals that the Court below has neither applied its mind to the documents produced before it nor did it arrive at prima facie satisfaction about commission of the alleged offences. In view of the aforesaid infirmity, I quash the impugned order and remit the matter back to the Court below with direction to it to peruse the Case Diary and other materials and thereafter if it is prima facie satisfied that the ingredients of the alleged offences are made out, it shall pass necessary orders in consonance with law.
The CRLMC is accordingly disposed of.