Smt. Laxmi Dei vs Bhabesh Chandra Mohanty and Another

S.C. Mohapatra, J.—Having failed in revision before the Learned Sessions judge, Petitioner has filed this application no quash the direction issued by the learned Magistrate for having committed offences u/s 426, 447 and 506, I.P.C.

Opposite party lodged information before the Officer in charge, Bhadrak town Police Station on 1.4.1986 against one Sravan Kumar and the Petitioner. Charge sheet was filed against Sravan Kumar alone and cognizance was taken on 8.7.1986. After framing of the charges, informant filed an application in the court of Sub-divisional Judicial Magistrate to issue process against the Petitioner also. The same was allowed. Against the order, Petitioner filed revision and learned Additional Sessions Judge Bhadrak dismissed the same. Hence this application.

It is submitted by the learned Counsel for Petitioner that the investigating agency has been satisfied that there is no case against the Petitioner. Learned Magistrate ought not to have issued process against the Petitioner, who is a widow and she is likely to be harassed by facing the trial and, accordingly, the proceeding ought to be quashed.

It is now settled in the decision reported in Hareram Satpathy Vs. Tikaram Agarwala and Others, . that after taking cognizance and issuing process against some accused persons, Court can issue process against others not named in the police papers. In the present case in the first information report allegations were made against the Petitioner. Perusing the statements of witnesses recorded by the Investigating Office-I, learned Magistrate was satisfied that there are prima facie materials against the Petitioner for which he directed issue of process. Inherent power of this Court is not meant to launch a proceeding to sit in appeal over the decision of the learned Magistrate.

Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that the Petitioner will be harassed by attending Court everyday to face the trial. Prosecution against a person is not a harassment to any person. However, appearance on each day may amount to harassment in a particular case. In the present case taking into consideration that the Petitioner is a widow, I direct that personal attendance of the Petitioner may be dispensed with on application in that regard in the trial court subject to the condition that she will personally appear when the trial so directs. For this purpose atleast two weeks time should be granted, so that in case Petitioner is absent for any reason she can get the information from his representing lawyer and appear. In case of non-appearance on the date fixed by the learned Magistrate non-bailable warrant of arrest shall be issued for securing her attendance.

Subject to the aforesaid observation, this application is disposed of. In view of the disposal of this application, filing of that certified copy of the trial court judgment is dispensed with.