Damayanti Misra vs State Of Orissa & Another
2021 Latest Caselaw 62 Ori

                    CORAM :- HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE S.PUJAHARI
                                 CRLMC NO.412 OF 2010

                        Damayanti Misra.
                                                       ........ Petitioner
                              -Versus-

                        State of Orissa & another.
                                                       ........ Opp.parties

                                         ORDER

In the wake of the pandemic Covid-19, the

17. 04.01.2021 case was taken up through V.C.

2. This application under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.

has been filed for quashing of the entire proceeding

in C.T.(GR) Case No.49 of 2010, corresponding to

Soro P.S. Case No.27 of 2010, pending in the Court

of the learned J.M.F.C., Soro.

3. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties

and perused the impugned order and other relevant

papers on record vis-à-vis the grounds taken by the

accused-petitioners vide his application under

Section 482 of Cr.P.C.

4. The prosecution against the present petitioner

has been launched vide the case indicated above

pursuant to the F.I.R. lodged by the present opposite

party no.1-informant on the accusation, inter-alia,

that the petitioner and the co-accused persons

abetted commission of suicide of Nrusingha Charan

Panda, the deceased husband of the Informant.

According to the prosecution, the petitioner falsely

claiming to be the wife of the deceased - Nrusingha,

and in furtherance of her intention common to the

co-accused persons, subjected the deceased -

Nrusingha to vexatious litigations leading to severe

mental torture to him and thereby committed

abetment of his suicide. On the basis of the charge-

sheet submitted by the police, the learned Magistrate

has taken cognizance of offence under Section

306/34 of IPC against the petitioner and the co-

accused persons.

5. Seeking quashment of the said proceeding,

learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits,

inter-alia, that the materials on record do not make

out any case under Section 306 of IPC against the

petitioner who was evidently away from the deceased

- Nrusingha, being in a state of desertion and

deprivation. It is his further contention that since the

petitioner had initiated some legal proceedings in

assertion and substantiation of her right and claim

against the deceased, and that in order to deprive

her from her legitimate claim, the present

prosecution has been falsely launched against her at

the instance of the Informant, after the suicidal

death of Nrusingha. According to the learned counsel

for the petitioner, continuance of the impugned

proceeding before the Court below would be an

abuse of the process of the Court causing gross

prejudice to the petitioner. The learned counsel for

the petitioner in support of his contention has placed

reliance on a decision of the Apex Court in the case

of State of Haryana and others vrs. Ch. Bhajan

Lal and others, reported in 1992 AIR 604.

In course of the argument, the learned counsel

has further submitted that at the instance of the

petitioner, there was initiated a prosecution under

Sections 494/498A/506 of IPC vide C.T. Case

No.1362 of 2009 in the court of the S.D.J.M.,

Balasore corresponding to Balasore Town P.S. Case

No.274 dated 17.07.2009 against Late Nrusingha

and although he had approached this Court to

quash the investigation of the said case vide CRLMC

No.2630 of 2009, this Court vide the judgment dated

23.12.2009 dismissed the said CRLMC.

6. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for

the Informant-opposite party no.2 and also the

learned counsel for the State submit that this being

not a stage to take into account the probable defence

plea of the accused-petitioner, and the prosecution

launched being backed by enough materials to show

criminal indulgence of the petitioner resulting in

suicidal death of the deceased - Nrusingha, this

Court should not interfere with the proceeding of the

case pending in the Court below.

7. There is no controversy on record that

Nrusingha died a suicidal death. It is also an

admitted fact that by the time of such incident, the

deceased was subjected to criminal proceedings

initiated at the instance of the present petitioner.

While according to the petitioner, she happened to be

the first wife of Nrusingha, the Informant-opposite

party no.2 happened to be the married wife of the

deceased and she (informant) was alleged by the

petitioner to be the second wife of the Nrusingha.

8. 'Abetment' is constituted of instigating a

person to commit an offence / indulgence, or

engaging in a conspiracy to commit it, or

intentionally aiding a person to commit it. In the

case at hand, as it appears, the petitioner along with

the co-accused persons is alleged to have instigated

the deceased to go for a suicide, by giving him

mental torture and other harassments through

litigations, character assassination, harming official

position etc. The ingredients of an offence under

Section 306 of IPC are mostly gathered from

circumstantial evidence, and at the threshold of the

proceeding, it is neither desirable nor permissible to

go deep into the materials for any threadbare

analysis. On taking a prima-facie view of the

available materials on record, this Court does not

feel to interfere with the proceeding, by taking

recourse to Section 482 of Cr.P.C.

9. Hence, this CRLMC stands dismissed being

devoid of merit.

The parties may utilize the copy of this order as

per the High Court's Notice No.4587 dated 25.03.2020.

...........................

S.Pujahari, J.

MRS