Skip to content


Orissa State Power Loom Service Co-operative Society Ltd. Vs. Hrudananda Swain - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCriminal
CourtOrissa High Court
Decided On
Case NumberCriminal Revision No. 267 of 1984
Judge
Reported in58(1984)CLT566; 1984(II)OLR1051
ActsCode of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1973
AppellantOrissa State Power Loom Service Co-operative Society Ltd.
RespondentHrudananda Swain
Appellant AdvocateAshok Mohanty, ; Bimal P. Das and ; Sashi Das
Respondent AdvocateB.L.N. Swamy and ; B.K. Mohapatra
DispositionPetition allowed
Excerpt:
.....- it is well settled that a protest petition when made is to be treated as a complaint petition and the magistrate after complying with the provisions of chapter xv of the code of criminal procedure may either issue process to the accused persons or dismiss the complaint......of purighat p.s. case no. 171/83. ultimately, on 3.5.1934 after receiving the records, he perused the same and dropped the case. it is well settled that a protest petition when made is to be treated as a complaint petition and the magistrate after complying with the provisions of chapter xv of the code of criminal procedure may either issue process to the accused persons or dismiss the complaint. in the present case the learned magistrate has followed a peculiar procedure. on a perusal of the final form, he has dropped the proceeding. this procedure adopted by the learned magistrate is not justified and it has caused serious prejudice to the petitioner. so, i am of the view that the order passed by the learned magistrate should be quashed.4. in the result, the revision is allowed.....
Judgment:

J.K. Mohanty, J.

1. The petitioner is a cooperative society registered under the Orissa Co-operative Societies Act and is engaged in the business of marketing textile products. The opp. party, Hrudananda Swain, was appointed as a Junior Clerk under the petitioner on 1.4.1979. On 20.1.1982 he was posted as Godown-in-charge of the godowns of the petitioner situated at Jhola Sahi and Ranihat, in the town of Cuttack. In his capacity as an employee of the petitioner the opp. party was entrusted with different textile products. On 25.3.1983 it was dected that he has committed breach of trust with respect to the properties entrusted to him. F.I.R. was lodged by the Managing Director of the petitioner-society before the Officer-in-charge, Purighat Police-Station and Purighat P.S Case No. 171 of 1983 was registered under Section 408, IPC, against the opposite party. The Officer-in-charge of the police-station, after investigating into the case, submitted final form mentioning that on account of insufficient evidence the case could not be charge-sheeted. A copy of the final form was received by the petitioner-society on 24.11.1983 and thereafter the petitioner filed protest petition alleging that the opposite party has committed an offence punishable under Section 408, IPC, which was registered as a complaint case (I.C.C. Case No. 328 of 1983) in the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Cuttack. The learned C. J. M. recorded the initial statement of the petitioner had called for the records of G.R. Case No. 819/83 which was registered on the basis of Purighat P.S. Case No. 171/83. On 3.5.1984 he perused the records and passed the following order.

'Record from the C.S.I. is received. Perused the G.R. 819 of 1983. Due to insufficient evidence, the case could not be charge-sheeted and F. F. has been submitted. So the case is dropped. Return the G.R. record.'

This revision petition has been filed against the aforesaid order of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Cuttack.

2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the C.J.M. has acted illegally in rejecting the petition. It is further submitted that the protest petition is to be treated as a complaint petition and the provisions of Chapter XV of the Code of Criminal Procedure are to be complied with. This has not been done by the learned C.J.M. which has caused serious prejudice to the petitioner.

3. There is considerable force in the above submission. As it transpires from the order-sheet of I.C.C. Case No. 328/83, the learned C.J.M., examined the complainant and thereafter called for the records of Purighat P.S. Case No. 171/83. Ultimately, on 3.5.1934 after receiving the records, he perused the same and dropped the case. It is well settled that a protest petition when made is to be treated as a complaint petition and the Magistrate after complying with the provisions of Chapter XV of the Code of Criminal Procedure may either issue process to the accused persons or dismiss the complaint. In the present case the learned Magistrate has followed a peculiar procedure. On a perusal of the final form, he has dropped the proceeding. This procedure adopted by the learned Magistrate is not justified and it has caused serious prejudice to the petitioner. So, I am of the view that the order passed by the learned Magistrate should be quashed.

4. In the result, the revision is allowed and the order dated 3.5.1983 of the Chief Judicial Magistrate passed in I.C.C. Case No. 328 of 1984 is quashed. The C.J.M. is directed to dispose of the complaint petition in accordance with law.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //