S. K. Sahoo, J. - (1.) In CRLMC No.256 of 2003, the petitioner no.1 Surendranath Tripathi was the Chairman -cum- Managing Director, OSFC, the petitioner no.2 Pradyut Kumar Balabantaray was the Deputy General Manager, OSFC, the petitioner no.3 Arun Kumar Das was the General Manager, OSFC and the petitioner no.4 Rabindaranath Dey was the Joint General Manager, OSFC and in CRLMC No.303 of 2003, the petitioner no.1 Pravat Chandra Mohapatra was the Joint General Manager, OSFC, the petitioner no.2 Pramod Chandra Panda was the Joint General Manager, OSFC, Cuttack and the petitioner no.3 Lalit Kumar Nanda was the Deputy General Manager (Law), OSFC. Since both CRLMC applications under section 482 of Cr.P.C. arise out of I.C.C. Case No.952 of 2002 pending in the Court of learned S.D.J.M., Bhubaneswar in which the petitioners have challenged the impugned order dated 16.01.2003 passed by the learned S.D.J.M. in taking cognizance of offences punishable under sections 294, 323,506 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code and issuance of process against them, with the consent of the parties, both the applications were heard analogously and disposed of by this common judgment.
(2.) The opp. party Pravabati Pattnaik stated in the complaint petition that she and her husband Santosh Kumar Pattnaik were the partners of M/s. Indoplast Industries situated at D-2/3, Mancheswar, Industrial Estate, Bhubaneswar and they were carrying on their business by making a partnership agreement and owing to super cyclone, the industry was damaged for which they submitted an application for loan to the OFSC authorities under cyclone rehabilitation scheme and on 27.12.2000 a loan of Rs. 13.21 lakhs was sanctioned, out of which Rs.2,81,000/- was released on 03.04.2001 by the OSFC authorities. Thereafter, the complainant and her husband approached the petitioner Surendranath Tripathi and other concerned authorities to get back the balance amount of Rs.10,040,00/- in order to get back their industry in a running condition but that was not done in spite of repeated requests. It is the further case of the complainant that on 04.07.2002 at about 11.30 a.m., the complainant reached at the office of the OSFC and when she entered into the office of the petitioner Surendranath Tripathi, he challenged her as to how she entered in the room. When the complainant tried to explain her grievances, the petitioner shouted at her and pushed her out of the room. The complainant vehemently raised her protest to the misbehavior of the petitioner but he called the other petitioners who came to the spot and all of them surrounded the complainant and did not allow her to go out and then she was assaulted by fists and blows and then the petitioner Surendranath Tripathi abused her in filthy language such as "BEDHA TO GANDI GALU HEUCHHIKI, MARIBAKU AASIGALU". Then the petitioners dragged the complainant on the floor upto the stair case and threw her on the stair case. The petitioner Surendranath Tripathi threatened her again such as "BEDHA AAU THARE OFFICEKU AASILE MARI SAFA KARIDEBI". At that point of time the witnesses were present at the spot and when they protested against the illegal action of the petitioners, they stopped assaulting the complainant. It is stated that due to assault by the petitioners, the complainant sustained swelling injury on her waist and pain on the different parts of her body for which she was medically examined. It is further stated in the complaint petition that a report was lodged in connection with the case before the I.I.C., Nayapalli police station who assured to investigate the matter but did not take any action for which the complainant sent information along with the copy of the F.I.R. to the Superintendent of Police, Khurda, Bhubaneswar. It is further stated that police did not investigate the matter being gained over by the petitioners and accordingly, the complaint petition was filed.
(3.) After filing of the complaint petition on 24.07.2002, the learned S.D.J.M., Bhubaneswar recorded the initial statement of the complainant-opp.party and also conducted inquiry under section 202 of Cr.P.C., during course of which the complainant examined three witnesses. The learned Magistrate after perusing the averments taken in the complaint petition, the initial statement of the complainant recorded under section 200 of Cr.P.C. and the statements of the witnesses recorded under section 202 of Cr.P.C., found prima facie material for commission of offences under sections 294/323/506/34 of the Indian Penal Code and accordingly, took cognizance of such offences. The learned Magistrate also considered the aspect that the petitioners are the public servants and considering the provision under section 197 of the Cr.P.C. held that no protection can be granted to the petitioners as there was neither any requirement nor the situation was such that it was necessary for the accused persons either to use filthy language to the complainant or to assault or criminally intimidate her. It was further held that the act complained of has absolutely no nexus with the discharge of the official duty of the petitioners and no sanction is necessary before taking cognizance.;