Apela (Panda) Bujruk & Ors vs Amit Panda & Anr on 17 July, 2017

1

7.2017 CRR 771 of 2015

34.
Apela (Panda) Bujruk Ors. Vs. Amit Panda Anr.

Mr. Manjunath R ..For the petitioner.

Pursuant to the order of this Court, the petitioner has attempted to serve

notice upon the opposite party twice but the postal envelop came with

endorsement “refused”.

Refusal tantamount to good service.

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner mainly contended

that the learned trial court had no jurisdiction to entertain such an application

because the entire incident took place in Bangalore. According to him, a case

under section 354 IPC has also been registered but the victim has not been

examined under section 354 IPC. In spite of that the learned trial court has

issued process against him.

In view of the amendment of Act 2005 so far as section 202 Cr.P.C is

concerned, the learned Magistrate ought to have made an enquiry before issuing

such process. Admittedly, the present petitioner resides at Bangalore. There is no

indication in the order itself that the learned Magistrate has made any such

enquiry before issuing process. Therefore, the grievance of the petitioner cannot

be ruled out at this stage.

In view of the above , I set aside the order dated 4.9.2014 passed by the

learned CJM, Purba Medinipur with a direction to cause an enquiry under
2

section 202 Cr.P.C and thereafter if he thinks fit, he shall issue process against

the petitioner and other.

CRR 771 of 2015 is thus disposed of.

Photostat certified copy of this be given to the parties, if applied for, by

READ  Ghanshyam vs State on 28 June, 2017

giving priority.

( Siddhartha Chattopadhyay, J. )

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *