Orissa High Court
Ansuman Naik And Others vs State Of Odisha And Another on 13 December, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
CRLMC No.2535 of 2021
Ansuman Naik and Others Petitioners
Mr. N. Swain, Advocate
-Versus-
State of Odisha and Another .... Opposite Parties
Mr. S. Mishra, ASC
Mr. P.K. Jena, Advocate for O.P. No.2
CORAM:
MR. JUSTICE R.K. PATTANAIK
ORDER
Order 13.12.2022
No.
09. 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned counsel
for the State and learned counsel for opposite party No.2.
2. Instant petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is at the behest of
the petitioners for quashing of the impugned order dated 12th
March, 2021 under Annexure-4 and consequential order of issuance
of process against them in connection with G.R. Case No.1866 of
2020 corresponding to Mahila P.S. Case No.16 of 2020 pending in
the file of learned S.D.J.M.(P), Rourkela on the grounds stated
therein.
3. A copy of the FIR is at Annexure-1.
4. In fact, opposite party No.2 filed a complaint before the
learned court below whereupon Mahila P.S. Case No.16 of 2020
registered under Section 493 IPC and other allied offences and lastly
on submission of chargesheet, the learned court below passed the
impugned order under Annexure-4.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that no any
offence under Section 493 IPC is made out considering the
complaint and materials submitted along with the chargesheet i.e.
Annexure-2 and therefore, the learned court below could not have
taken cognizance of the said offence under Annexure-4. It is further
submitted that if at all any such offence can be alleged against the
petitioners and in particular petitioner No.1, it is in respect of an
offence punishable under Section 496 IPC. Hence, according to the
learned counsel for the petitioners, the impugned order under
Annexure-4 is not sustainable in law to the extent and with regard
to offence under Section 493 IPC and therefore, it is liable to be
interfered with and quashed. While contending so, learned counsel
for the petitioners cites a decision of this Court in the case of Saurav
Brik Vrs. Smt. Gouri Kaudi alias Gouri reported in 1994 CRI. L.J.
440. Another decision in Raghunath Padhy Vrs. The State decided
and disposed of on 1st October, 1956 by this Court is placed reliance
on by the learned counsel for the petitioners while claiming that an
offence under Section 493 IPC is not made out when the allegation
is to the effect that the marriage was fraudulently managed.
6. Mr. Mishra, learned counsel for the State on the other hand
submits that the learned court below did not commit any error or
wrong in taking cognizance of the offences and particularly for an
offence under Section 493 IPC and hence, the impugned order
under Annexure-4 is not to be disturbed. The learned counsel for
opposite party No.2 submits that a brief note along with citations
has been submitted and he also contends that in the facts and
circumstances of the case an offence under Section 493 IPC is prima
facie made out and hence, the impugned order under Annexure-4 is
not to be set aside. The limitation for the Court in exercising the
inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is highlighted upon
by the learned counsel for opposite party No.2 referring to decision
of State of Haryana and Ors. Vrs. Ch. Bhajan Lal and Others 1992
Suppl. (1) SCC 335. Considering the FIR and the allegations made
therein by opposite party No.2, it is made to appear that she had a
divorce with petitioner No.1 in C.P. No.69 of 2019 by judgment
dated 16th October, 2019 by the learned Family Court but thereafter
by the conduct of the petitioners, he was made to believe to be the
legally wedded wife of petitioner No.1 and then the alleged mischief
was committed. Regard being had to the nature of allegations
revealed from Anenxure-1, the Court is of the view that whether a
marriage was stage managed by petitioners or there was no
marriage at all but under false impression opposite party No.2 was
made to believe as the wife of petitioner No.1 and then there was
co-habitation is a matter which remains within the domain of the
learned court below for examination. In other words, the Court is
of the view that the contention of the learned counsel for the
petitioners is required to be gone through by the court below during
and in course of trial on receiving evidence for a decision as to if an
offence under Section 493 IPC is made out or one under Section
496 IPC as is being claimed.
7. At this juncture, learned counsel for the petitioners submits
that if the Court is not inclined to interfere with the impugned order
even to the extent involving an offence under Section 493 IPC,
liberty should be granted to the petitioners to raise such a ground at
the time of framing of charge. The Court is of the view that since
such a question is to be examined by the learned court below and
by being aware of the settled position of law with regard to exercise
of inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the Court is of
the view that though no case is made out for interference, however,
liberty should be granted to the petitioners to raise above ground
while seeking discharge from the offence under Section 493 Cr.P.C.
8. Accordingly, it is ordered.
9. In the result, CRLMC stands disposed of with liberty granted
to the petitioners to raise all such grounds including the one taken
up at present at the time of framing of charge and in the event any
such application so moved by them in connection with G.R. Case
No.1866 of 2020 corresponding to Mahila P.S. Case No.16 of
2020, the learned S.D.J.M.(P), Rourkela shall consider the same and
pass appropriate orders thereon as per and in accordance with law
without being influenced by the any of the observations of the
Court made herein above.
10. Urgent certified copy of this order be granted as per rules.
(R.K. Pattanaik)
Judge
TUDU
