WILLIAM GEORGE BENEDICT Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure ('the Code', for short) has been filed not only for quashing the order dated 11 11 2000 passed by the Subdivisional Judicial Magistrate ('S.D.J.M.', for short), Puri, in G. R. Case No. 176 of 2000 taking cognizance of offences alleged to have been committed under Sections 120B, 376(g), 377 and 341, I.P.C. and 47 of the Indecent Representation of Women (Prohibition) Act, 1986 but also for quashing the proceeding in the said G. R. Case.

(2.) FROM the averments made in the petition it appears that on the basis of the written report lodged by one Maria Schmidova alias Mangala Devi Dasi, Sea Beach Police Station Case No. 75 of 2000, corresponding to G. R. Case No. 716 of 2000 in the file of S.D.J.M., Puri, was registered for the offences alleged to have been committed under the aforesaid provisions of law.The report was in German language and could only be translated into English later. From 9 9 2000 the investigation started. The allegations in the F.I.R. are that the informant had come to India on 27 9 1999 accompanied by one Kunja Bihari Das, Inter pol Officer and while coming to Puri she was introduced to one Arjun, brother of the co accused Mayapuri Chandra in the train. On his recommendation she stayed in Hotel Gandhara. The informant accompanied him to Gopinath Gaudia Math in the evening where she was introduced to the co accused Ashok Sahu and Kunja Bihari Das and the aforesaid Ashok Sahu expressed his desire to marry her. Thereafter the informant left for Austria and they continued to communicate over telephone even after her return to Austria and in December, 2000 she came back to Puri on the invitation of Ashok Sahu and both of them stayed at Basu Hotel, Puri, where both of them had cohabitation. In January, 2000 she left Puri for Austria and returned with her minor daughter Tulsi Devi in March, 2000. After coming back to Pun the informant stayed with Ashok Sahu in a rented house at Bajia Panda and during her stay Ashok introduced her to the co accused Mandali Bhadra Prabhu. On 28 6 2000 the informant learnt from one Sanjay that Ashok was a homo sexual and on return home she managed to lead Ashok to the adjoining room where she was locked by him. She further stated in the F.I.R. that on 30 6 2000 she learnt from her daughter Tulsi that Ashok Sahu and Mayapuri Chandra came to Tulsi's room and committed acts of sexual perversion and made a video film of the incident. In the F.I.R. the informant has named Ashok Sahu and Mayapuri Chandra as the persons who had sexually abused her daughter. On the basis of the written report investigation was taken up and the statements of the victim girl and the informant were recorded under Section 161, Cr. P. C. On 29 6 2000 the residential premises of the petitioner were searched but nothing incriminating was recovered. On 3 7 2000 the Inspector in charge of Sea Beach Police Station went to the house of the petitioner accompanied by the informant and her daughter and the case diary indicates that seeing the petitioner, the informant shoutedin a loud voice that he had sexually abused her daughter along with Mandali Bhadra, Mayaputi Chandra and Ashok Sahu. Even on these allegations the petitioner had not been arrested and on 25 7 2000 the petitioner and his family left for Bangkok with due intimation to the Inspector in charge. The purpose of the journey was to attend a Board meeting of his company at Bangkok scheduled to be held on 1 8 2000. After attending the said Board meeting the petitioner came back with his family on 10 8 2000. Even after his return from Bangkok he was not arrested and on 18 8 2000 the investigation was handed over to C.I.D. (Crime Branch), Cuttack. After investigation was taken up by the C.I.D. (Crime Branch), the Investigating Officer re examined the informant as well as the victim girl. On 20 8 2000 the I.O. directed the petitioner to appear before him for interrogation on the next day. When the petitioner went to Sea Beach Police Station for interrogation, he was arrested by the I.O. of the Crime Branch. He was forwarded to Court and remanded to jail. The petitioner was remanded to jail custody on 21 8 2000 and when the statutory period of completion of investigation had not been completed, the I.O. submitted a preliminary Charge sheet under Section 173(2) of the Code against the petitioner and three other accused persons alleging commission of offences under the provisions of law as stated above. Along with, the charge sheet the I.O. submitted an application before the S.D.J.M., Puri, stating therein specifically that the investigation into the case was not complete and further investigation was required to be made into the allegations made in the F.I.R. and prayed for permission to keep the investigation open under Section 173(8) of the Code. On the basis of the aforesaid preliminary charge sheet cognizance was taken by the learned Magistrate by order dated 11 11 5000.

(3.) SO far as the first point raised by the learned counsel for petitioner is concerned, it is worthwhile to refer to Section 173 of the Code which runs as follows :