SARAT CHANDRA PANDA Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner in this application under Section 482, Cr.P.C. assails the order dated 29.10.2002 passed by the learned S.D.J.M., Jajpur in I.C.C.Case No. 153 of 2002 taking cognizance of the offence under Sections 504/323, IPC against him and order dated 30.4.2004 rejecting the petition of the petitioner to reconsider the order of cognizance.

(2.) Opposite party no.2 being the complainant filed a complaint before the learned S.D.J.M., Jajpur on 26.4.2002 which was registered as I.C.C Case No. 153 of 2002. The learned Magistrate by order dated 29.10.2002 recorded the initial statement of the complainant under Section 202, Cr.P.C. along with one covictim Harihar Singh. The petitioner (accused no.1) was working as Tahasildar, Dharmasala, whereas accused no.2 was working as R.I. in the same Tahasil. Allegation has been made against the accused no.2 that he demanded money from the complainant and his brother Harihar as a condition precedent for sanction of cyclone relief in their favour. Allegation as against accused no.1 (the present petitioner), was that he uttered abusive words at the complainant and his brother and gave assault to the complainant when the complainant had been to his office to report against accused no.2 and also to ventilate their grievances in the matter of cyclone relief. On the basis of such allegations and materials available on record, on being prima facie satisfied that a case under Section 504/323, IPC is made out, the learned S.D.J.M. took cognizance of the offence against the petitioner and another Nilamani Biswal. Thereafter, the petitioner again moved a petition on 8.4.2003 to reconsider the matter of cognizance as against him. However, the learned Magistrate by order dated 30.4.2004 rejected the said petition on the ground that the act complained against the accused-petitioner has no nexus with the discharge of his official duty nor the same can be said to have been committed in excess of discharge of his official duty.

(3.) Though this CRLMC has been filed challenging the order of cognizance dated 29.10.2002 and the order dated 30.4.2004 rejecting the petition for reconsideration of the order of cognizance, learned counsel for the petitioner in course of hearing submitted a memo stating that he does not want to press the prayer so far as quashing of the order dated 30.4.2004 is concerned.