Orissa High Court
Tulasi Dixit vs State Of Odisha And Others on 18 November, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
CRLMC No.1981 of 2022
Tulasi Dixit .... Petitioner
Mr. B.N. Mohapatra, Advocate
-Versus-
State of Odisha and Others .... Opposite Parties
Mr. S. Mishra, ASC
Mr. N.K. Das, Advocate for O.P.No.2
CORAM:
MR. JUSTICE R.K. PATTANAIK
ORDER
Order 18.11.2022
No.
02. 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned
counsel for the State besides learned counsel for opposite party
No.2.
2. Instant petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is filed for
quashing of the order of cognizance vide Annexuree-2 passed in
G.R. Case No.390 of 2016 by the learned S.D.J.M., Rairangpur on
the grounds stated therein.
3. A copy of the FIR is at Annexure-1 and the same is perused.
4. The impugned order is at Annexure-2 besides the copy of
the judgment in S.T. No.19 of 2017 delivered by the court of
learned Additional Sessions Judge, Rairangpur, Mayurbhanj on 31st
March, 2021 which is in respect of two other accused persons,
namely, the husband and father-in-law of the victim/deceased, who
was the daughter of opposite party No.2.
5. A copy of judgment in Criminal Appeal No.187 of 2021 by
this Court dated 27th April, 2022 is at Annexure-5.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
petitioner is the mother-in-law of the deceased whereas other two
accused persons though initially convicted by the Sessions court in
S.T. Case No.19 of 2017 despite hostile evidence, the finding and
order of conviction as well as sentence was overturned by this Court
in Criminal Appeal No.187 of 2021. It is further submitted that there
is no evidence at all, inasmuch as, opposite party No.2 and all other
material witnesses did not support the prosecution case which,
however, resulted in conviction and thereafter, it was set aside in
appeal by this Court and considering the same, as the two accused
persons including the husband of the victim have been acquitted of
all the charges, no fruitful purpose would be served to subject the
petitioner to face a trial and therefore, the criminal proceeding
pending before the court of learned S.D.J.M., Rairangpur in G.R.
Case No.390 of 2016 should be quashed in the interest of justice.
7. Mr. Mishra, learned counsel for the State objects to the
contention of the petitioner by stating that the mother-in-law of the
deceased has not yet been committed to the Sessions court. Learned
counsel for the opposite party No.2 submits that an affidavit is filed
sworn by opposite party No.2 himself and it is stated that the
informant does not have any objection, if the proceeding is closed
against the petitioner, as in the meantime, other two accused
persons have been acquitted by this Court.
8. In fact, the husband and father-in-law of the deceased,
namely, the daughter of opposite party No.2 faced full-fledged trial
in S.T. No.19 of 2017 which though resulted in an order of
conviction however on a reading of the judgment of the Sessions
court, it is made to appear that the prosecution witnesses turned
hostile and finally it stood set aside by this Court in Criminal Appeal
No.187 of 2021. At present, opposite party No.2 filed an affidavit
stating about having no objection, if the criminal proceeding is
quashed particularly on the anvil of acquittal of other two accused
persons.
9. Considering the totality of the facts and circumstances of the
case and taking judicial notice of the fact that the other two accused
persons have been acquitted of all the charges by a judgment dated
27th April, 2022 in Criminal Appeal No.187 of 2021, the Court is of
the humble opinion that no worthy purpose would be served to
subject the petitioner to a full blown trial with such evidence
received during the trial. In other words, the Court is of the
opinion that there is most unlikely to have any incriminating
evidence against the petitioner if there is a trial and hence, under
such circumstances and more particular when the other two accused
persons are acquitted of the charges, in exercise of inherent
jurisdiction, the criminal proceeding which is pending before the
learned court below yet to be committed should be brought to an
end and quashed.
10. Accordingly, it is ordered.
11. In the result, CRLMC stands allowed. Consequently, the
impugned order of cognizance under Annexure-2 besides entire of
the criminal proceeding in G.R. Case No.390 of 2016 arising out of
Rairangpur Town P.S. Case No.83 of 2016 pending in the file of
learned S.D.J.M., Rairangpur is hereby quashed.
12. Urgent certified copy of this order be granted as per rules.
(R.K. Pattanaik)
Judge
TUDU
