AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Heard learned Counsel for the Petitioner. The learned Counsel for the opp.party is absent.
In this case, the Petitioner challenges the order of taking cognizance passed in SDJM, Jeypore in ICC No. 71 of 2008 wherein the learned lower Court took cognizance for the offence under Sections 294/506 of the I.P.C. read with Section 3(1)(x) of the S.C & S.T. (PA) Act and issued warrant at the first instance.
In Inder Mohan Goswami and Anr. v. State of Uttaranchal and Ors. (2008) 39 OCR 188 (S.C.) at para 54, it is held that in complaint cases, at the first instance, the Court should direct serving of the summons along with.the copy of the complaint. If the accused seem to be avoiding the summons, the Court, in the second instance should issue bailable warrant. In the third instance, when the Court is fully satisfied that the accused is avoiding the Court''s proceeding intentionally, the process pf issuance of the non-bailable warrant should be resorted to.
Hence the issue of warrant at the first instance, in this case, requires interference.
This Court is satisfied that finding prima facie material on record, the lower Court has rightly taken cognizance of the offence u/s 294/506 of the Indian Penal Code read with Section 3(1)(x) of the S.C. & S.T. (P.A.) Act. Accordingly, the criminal revision is allowed in part.
The order of cognizance is upheld. However, the order of issuing warrant at the first instance is hereby set aside.
Since the Petitioner is present before this Court, it is expedient to direct him to appear before the learned Court below in the aforesaid case within two weeks from today and pray for bail. In such event, the learned SDJM shall release the Petitioner orv bail on such terms and conditions as deem fit and proper by him.