ORIGINAL JURISDICTION - Orissa High Court

130
5. Apart from the above, I also find that the learned Magistrate after
recording the initial statement of the complainant on 18.1.2007 adjourned the
case for further enquiry. It would obviously mean enquiry as visualized u/s.
202 of the Code. Since the learned Magistrate has postponed the issue of
process it was incumbent on the learned Magistrate to cause an enquiry as
he thinks fit for the purpose of deciding whether or not there is sufficient
ground for proceeding. It was also open to the learned Magistrate to take
evidence of witnesses on oath as provided under sub-section (2) of Section
202 of the Code. It appears, the learned Magistrate without taking recourse
to these methods, took the impugned cognizance by order dated 2.2.2007.
This procedure, taken recourse to by learned Magistrate, in my considered
M/S.MAHAVIR AUTO DIAGNOSTIC PVT. -V- M.AIYER [B.P.RAY,J.]
opinion, is impermissible. True it is the learned Magistrate, can at once take
cognizance on filing of a complaint and recording initial statement of the
complainant u/s. 200 of the Code. This was not adopted and on the contrary,
the learned Magistrate decided to hold an enquiry and without holding any
enquiry, passed the impugned order of cognizance which is not in
consonance with the procedure prescribed in the Code.
6. For the reasons stated above, the impugned order taking cognizance
and proceeding in ICC Case No. 206 of 2007 in the file of learned S.D.J.M.,
Bhubaneswar are quashed.
Criminal Misc. Case is accordingly allowed.
Application allowed.