If the Magistrate has rejected the case for no cause, the mistake is a kind that is at the bottom of the situation. Without the justifications, the order would become null. The complainant has the right to know why a revisional court approach has rejected his case. His right to seek the revisionary tribunal is prejudiced by his ignorance of the grounds. The judgment was passed by The High Court of Orissa in the case of Lalit Mohan Patnaik V. Sadasiba Mohapatra and Ors. [CA No. 52 of 1993] by a Single Bench consisting of Hon’ble Shri Justice S.K. Sahoo.
This appeal has been filed by the appellant challenging the impugned order passed by the learned S.D.J.M., in refusing to take cognizance of the offences under sections 143, 382, 451, 504, 395 read with 2 sections 109 of the Indian Penal Code and also in dismissing the complaint petition. The appellant applied section 378(4) of Cr.P.C. seeking for special leave to prefer an appeal against the order and special leave was granted as per order, whereafter this appeal was preferred which was admitted.
It is the case of the appellant that the respondents had no right or authority to enter inside his house and to forcibly remove all the valuable properties in his absence. It is the further case of the appellant that he had not incurred any loan from the co-operative societies nor he was a defaulter nor any certificate proceeding or E.P. case had been initiated against him for recovery of any outstanding loan amount. Hence, the forcible and wrongful entry of the respondents inside his house and forcibly removing all his valuables as per the list keeping his sister’s son under wrongful restraint and fear of assault is highly illegal and done with mala fide intention to make personal gains of the respondents.
The learned court referred to M/s. Rourkela Construction Private Ltd. V. Ravindra Kumar Goyal wherein it was held that “under section 203 of the Cr.P.C., the Magistrate gets jurisdiction to dismiss a complaint if on perusal of the complaint and the evidence recorded U/s. 202, he finds that the essential ingredients of the offence alleged are absent or that the dispute is only civil or that there are such patent absurdities in the complaint or the evidence that it would be a wastage of time to proceed further.”
While dismissing the petition the learned court opined that “there is no any illegality or irregularity or perversity in the order. Moreover, a revision petition is maintainable against an order dismissing the complaint under section 203 of Cr.P.C. Special leave to prefer an appeal is sought for under section 378(4) of Cr.P.C. against an order of acquittal in any case instituted upon a complaint and dismissal of a complaint is not an acquittal as per explanation provided under section 300 of Cr.P.C.”
