(1.) The petitioners Adikanda Rout and Narahari Rout have filed this application under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. for quashing the order dated 01.08.2002 passed by the learned S.D.J.M., Hindol in I.C.C. Case No. 08 of 2002 in taking cognizance of the offences under Sections 450, 376(2)(g) of the Indian Penal Code and issuance of non-bailable warrant of arrest against them.
(2.) The prosecution case, as per the First Information Report dated 16.06.1995 lodged by the victims S-1 and S-2 is that the petitioners and other two persons namely Nabaghana Sahu and Natha Sahu committed rape on them on 12.06.1995 at 10.00 p.m. The matter was investigated upon and after completion of investigation, on 01.11.1996 the Officer in Charge, Rasol Police Station submitted final report indicating therein that it is a false case. On receipt of the final report, notice was issued to the informants and accordingly, the victim lady S-1 submitted a protest petition before the learned S.D.J.M., Hindol in which it is mentioned that the investigating officer without recording the true and proper statement of the victim and other witnesses and without sending the accused-petitioners for medical examination and examining only the witnesses to his choice has submitted the final report.
(3.) After receipt of the protest petition on 28.02.1997, the learned S.D.J.M., Hindol examined the victims S-1 and S-2 and witness Indrajit Mohanty during inquiry under Section 202 of Cr.P.C. and found that there is prima facie case for commission of offences against the accused persons and accordingly vide order dated 27.10.1997 took cognizance of the offences under section 448, 376, 109/34 of Indian Penal Code and issued process against the petitioners and the co-accused persons namely Nabaghana Sahu and Natha Sahu. All the four accused persons challenged the order dated 27.10.1997 in a revision petition which was heard by learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Dhenkanal in Criminal Revision No.70 of 1997/62 of 2001. The learned revisional Court vide judgment and order dated 11.01.2002 was of the view that the learned Magistrate has followed the provisions under Sections 200 and 202 of Cr.P.C. and accordingly, set aside the order dated 27.10.1997 and remitted the matter back to the learned S.D.J.M., Hindol with a direction to treat the protest petition as complaint and register the case as a complaint case and to examine the complainant on oath as per Section 200 of Cr.P.C. and examine other witnesses, if any, present with the complainant and thereafter to conduct inquiry into the matter as provided under Section 202 of Cr.P.C. if necessary and dispose of the case in accordance with law. After receipt of the judgment of the revisional Court, the learned S.D.J.M., Hindol registered the I.C.C. Case No.08 of 2002, issued notice to the victim S-1, recorded her initial statement on oath, conducted enquiry under Section 202 of Cr.P.C. during course of which the victim S-1 produced two witnesses, out of which the other victim S-2 was examined as C.W.1 and one Indra Mohanty was examined as C.W.2. Thereafter, vide impugned order dated 01.08.2002, the learned Magistrate after perusing the statement of the complainant on oath and the statements of the witnesses examined during enquiry under Section 202 Cr.P.C. and also perusing the F.I.R., C.D. and other relevant documents of G.R. Case No. 64 of 1995 was of the opinion there is sufficient ground for proceeding under Sections 450, 376(2)(g) of the Indian Penal Code against the four accused persons including the petitioners and accordingly, issued the non-bailable warrant of arrest which has been challenged in this revision petition.