Orissa High Court
Ratikanta Moharana And Others vs Chandini Prava Sahoo And Another on 25 November, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
CRLMC No.3042 of 2018
Ratikanta Moharana and others .... Petitioners
Mr.Niranjan Panda, Advocate
-Versus-
Chandini Prava Sahoo and another .... Opposite Parties
Mr. Kalpataru Panigrahi, Advocate for OP No.1
Mr. D.R. Parida, Addl. Standing Counsel OP No.2
CORAM:
JUSTICE R.K. PATTANAIK
ORDER
Order No. 25.11.2021
04. 1. Instant application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is filed
by the petitioners to quash the proceeding in connection with G.R.
Case No.884 of 2017 arising out of Jajpur P.S. Case No.222 of
2017 pending in the court of learned S.D.J.M., Jajpur under
Section(s) 498-A/294/323 and 506 read with Section 34 IPC and
Section 4 of the D.P. Act vis-à-vis the petitioners on the grounds,
inter alia, that it is untenable in law and hence, necessary orders to
be promulgated in respect thereof.
2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned
counsel for the State and OP No.2.
3. According to the petitioners, petitioner No.1
married OP No.1 in the year 2015 as per the Hindu rites and
customs in the presence of family members of both sides and other
gentlemen but from the 4th day of marriage, disturbance started as
OP No.1 was not happy with her marriage, which was solemnized
// 2 //
against her will. It is contended that the family members as well as
others of their caste made attempts to settle the dispute between
the parties but it was of no effect, rather, suggestion was made for
them to stay separately. Instead, according to the petitioners, OP
No.1 lodged F.I.R., as a result of which, Jajpur P.S. Case No.222
was registered and thereafter, charge sheet was filed under the
alleged offences. A copy of the charge sheet is at Annexure-1.
Considering the above facts and the fact that OP No.1, immediately
after the marriage and on account of an agreement to stay
separate, left her in-laws house and almost two years after, on false
grounds, lodged the F.I.R. which led to the initiation of the
criminal proceeding, which is now required to be quashed, as it
would lead to abuse of process of law.
4. It is pleaded by the petitioners that in Sunit Kumar
Jha Vrs. Dipmita Mukherjee reported in 2013 (Supp-II) OLR 624, it
has been held that to encourage genuine settlement of matrimonial
disputes, High Courts should exercise inherent power under Section
482 Cr.P.C. to quash the criminal proceedings of entirely private in
nature and a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Geeta
Meherotra and another Vrs. State of U.P. and another reported in
(2012) 530 CR (SC) 1257 is referred to, while seeking quashing of
the proceeding in G.R. Case No.884 of 2017 pleading that power
under Section 482 Cr.P.C. should be quashed, when the allegations
are made against all the in-laws including the husband only to
harass the entire family.
5. On the contrary, OP No.1 pleaded that the
allegations are not false in so far as the F.I.R. is concerned. It is
contended that after the F.I.R. was lodged, Jajpur P.S. Case No.222
was registered which ultimately resulted in filing of charge sheet
// 3 //
and hence, a prima facie case was found against the petitioners and
as regards, the truthfulness or falsity of allegations, it can only be
enquired into during trial in G.R. Case No.884 of 2017. In other
words, according to learned counsel for OP No.1, no case is really
made out to quash the criminal proceeding pending before the
learned court below in G.R. Case No.884 of 2017.
6. Learned counsel for the State OP No.2 supported
the contention of OP No.1.
7. Admittedly, after the F.I.R. was lodged by OP No.1
in the year 2017, the local police registered the case in Jajpur P.S.
Case No.222 and conducted investigation and recorded the
statements of witnesses under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and finally, filed
the charge sheet on 19.08.2017. Considering the statements of the
witnesses including OP No.1, it is made to suggest that there was
disturbance in the matrimonial life of the parties, as a result of
which and on the allegations that OP No.1 was subjected to mental
and physical torture, the F.I.R. was lodged against her husband and
in-laws. It is also made to suggest that after investigation, charge
sheet was filed against the petitioners, though, the marriage was
held in 2015. The circumstances leading to the lodging of report
and the events that happened in between till 2017 have been
described by OP No.1 in F.I.R. If, there was any agreement or
otherwise between the parties or an attempt was made for
resolution and that failed and the circumstances under which OP
No.1 claimed to have left her in-laws house, are all disputed facts as
being opposed by OP No.1, according to whom, she was ill-treated
which compelled her lodging the F.I.R. in 2017. As to the settled
position of law in the celebrated judgment of the Supreme Court in
the case of State of Haryana Vrs.Ch. Bhajan Lal and others reported
// 4 //
in 1990 SCR (Supp.3) 259, it is held that jurisdiction under Section
482 Cr.P.C. may be exercised by the High Courts in certain
categories of cases which stood illustrated. In fact, in the decision
(supra), the Supreme Court held that power under Article 226 of
the Constitution of India or inherent jurisdiction under Section 482
Cr.P.C. could be exercised either to prevent abuse of process of
court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice, though, it may not
always be possible to lay down any precise, clearly defined,
sufficiently channelized and inflexible guide in view of myriad kinds
of cases but then observed that if the allegations made in F.I.R. or
the complaint, even if taken at their face value and accepted in its
entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a
case against the accused; or where the allegations in the F.I.R. and
other materials, accompanying the F.I.R. do not disclose a
cognizable offence, justifying investigation under Section 156(1); or
where the uncontroverted allegations made in the F.I.R. or
complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same failed
to disclose commission of offence; or where such allegations do not
constitute a cognizable offence but only a non-cognizable offence
made out where investigation is permitted only upon an order of a
Magistrate as contemplated in Section 115 (2) Cr.P.C; or where
allegations are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of
which no prudent person can ever reach at a just conclusion that
there is sufficient ground for the proceeding against the accused; or
in case of any express legal bar under law; or where a criminal
proceeding is manifestly attended with malafide or where the
proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for
wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him
due to private and personal grudge, in under such circumstances, a
discretion may be exercised to bring an end to a criminal
// 5 //
proceeding. The above are the broad guidelines normally to be
applied before exercising inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
8. The last of the illustration is said to have been
invoked by the learned counsel for the petitioners contending that
the allegations to be false and the purpose of lodging it is
unassuming in spite of the fact that the marriage was of the year
2015 and thereafter, OP No.1 left in-laws house under a tacit
arrangement, so to speak and finally, F.I.R. was lodged in 2017 on
false grounds only to put them and particularly, petitioner No.3 to
immense hardship and harassment. It is also alleged that the
grounds are false and with a malicious intention, OP No.1 lodged
the F.I.R. long after two years of marriage and therefore, the
criminal proceeding in G.R. Case No.884 of 2017 deserves to be set
aside/quashed.
9. If the F.I.R. and its contents are gone through and
examined, prima facie, it revealed ill-treatment meted out to OP
No.1. It is not that on bare reference to the F.I.R., no case at all is
made out, rather, considering the allegations contained therein, it is
made to suggest that OP No.1 was not treated well after marriage
to petitioner No.3. The reasons behind ill-treatment stands
described in the F.I.R. which is more or less has been corroborated
by the witnesses, whose statements were recorded under Section
161 Cr.P.C. Under what circumstances OP No.1 left her in-laws
house and why she lodged the F.I.R. after two years from 2015
have been investigated upon by the local police who finally filed
the charge sheet in 2017. No doubt, the articles received by the
petitioners at the time of marriage between petitioner No.3 and
OP No.1 have been seized by the police under seizure list dated
10.09.2017 and left its zimma with OP No.1. The seizure from
// 6 //
petitioners and receipt of dowry articles by OP No.1 cannot lead to
an interference regarding any tacit understanding between the
parties. Rather, from the materials on record, it is suggested that
the parties did not pull on well and OP No.1, on account of alleged
ill-treatment, left the company of petitioner No.3. It is not a case of
any malicious prosecution or a proceeding to wreak vengeance on
petitioner No.3 and others. It is reiterated that the truthfulness of
the allegations can only be enquired into and considered during
trial in G.R. Case No.884 of 2017. As on date, in view of the
material evidence collected during investigation, prima facie, a case
can be held to have been made out for the purpose of trial. In
other words, the Court does not find any ground or justifiable
reason to interfere with the continuation of the criminal proceeding
in G.R. Case No.884 of 2017, as none of the grounds illustratively
mentioned in Bhajan Lal case (supra) said to have been satisfied.
10. Hence, it is ordered.
11. In the result, application under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
stands dismissed for the reasons discussed herein above.
(R.K. Pattanaik)
Judge
KC Bisoi
