7.2017 CRR 771 of 2015
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
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
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
( Siddhartha Chattopadhyay, J. )