Pravakar Nahak And Another vs State Of Orissa And Another
2023 Latest Caselaw 3545 Ori

                  ORISSA HIGH COURT: CUTTACK

                         CRLMC No.2951 of 2017

       In the matter of application under Section 482 of the
       Criminal Procedure Code, 1973.
                            ---------------

Pravakar Nahak and another ..... Petitioners

-Versus-

State of Orissa and another ..... Opp. Parties

For Petitioners : Mr. H.S. Mishra, Advocate

For Opp. Parties : Mr. P.K Pattnaik, A.G.A.

Mr. D.P. Dhal, Sr. Adv(O.P.No.2)

P R E S E N T:

JUSTICE G. SATAPATHY

Date of hearing:20.03.2023, Date of judgment: 17.04.2023

G.SATAPATHY, J. The prayer of the Petitioners in this

application U/S. 482 Cr.P.C. is to quash the order passed

on 06.05.2017 by learned S.D.J.M., Angul in G.R. Case

No.1730 of 2016 taking cognizance of offences U/Ss.

498(A)/294/323/506/34 of IPC r/w Sec. 4 of D.P. Act and

acquit them from all charges.

// 2 //

2. The short facts involved in this case arise

out of the FIR No.145 of 2016 of Nalco Township P.S.

registered on receipt of a complaint U/S. 156(3) of

Cr.P.C. from the Court of learned S.D.J.M., Angul and

the gist of allegations as set out in the complaint are

that O.P.No.2 had got married to the son of the

Petitioners as per Hindu Caste and Custom on

21.04.2015. At the time of marriage, dowry articles

including golden ornaments, gifts and cash of

Rs.2,000,00/- (Rupees Two Lakhs) were given to the

bride and bridegroom, but being dissatisfied, the

Petitioners and their son demanded additional cash of

Rs. 10,000,00/- (Rupees Ten Lakhs) at the time of

marriage and started creating disturbance for non-

compliance of the demand and the father of O.P.No.2

accordingly, paid Rs. 3,000,00/- (Rupees Three Lakhs)

additionally to meet the said unlawful demand to

complete the marriage, but the Petitioners and their

son asked the father of O.P.No.2 to pay the rest // 3 //

amount of Rs. 7,000,00/- (Rupees Seven Lakhs)

within a month. On completion of marriage, when O.P.

No.2 went to her matrimonial home, she was received

by her husband and the Petitioners with rancor and

hostility and they abused her in filthy language and

from the very beginning, she was not provided with

adequate food and was also prevented from wearing

dress materials and ornaments as well as prevented

her from visiting her parental house. According to O.P.

No.2, when she became pregnant, the accused

persons provided her with some soft drinks mixed with

white powder and the O.P.No.2 suffered miscarriage

and she was also not being provided with adequate

medical facility, however, for the better life of O.P.

No.2, her parents paid the rest of the demanded

amount of Rs. 7,000,00/- (Rupees Seven Lakhs) to the

accused persons within the month of January, 2016

and the husband of O.P. No.2 left her in parental home

by assuring to take her back within 15 days, but he // 4 //

did not take her back, and when O.P. No.2 approached

her husband to take her back, he scolded in filthy

language and they again demanded a new flat at

Bhubaneswar within six months. On the above

allegations amongst others, O.P.No.2 filed the

complaint in the Court of learned S.D.J.M., Angul

resulting in the present case, in which on receipt of

charge-sheet, the learned S.D.J.M., Angul took

cognizance of offences indicated in the preceding

paragraph by the impugned order.

3. In assailing the impugned order, Mr. H.S.

Mishra, learned counsel for the Petitioners, submits that

the Petitioners are the parents-in-law of the Informant-

cum-O.P.No.2 and there is absolutely no prima facie

allegations made out against any of the Petitioners for

commission of any offence. Mr. H.S. Mishra, by referring

to the FIR and statement of witnesses, submits that all

the allegation leveled against the Petitioners are

omnibus in nature and the Petitioners being old parents-

// 5 //

in-law have become the victim of the torture of

daughter-in-law and are suffering for the misuse of the

offence of dowry torture. Mr. H.S. Mishra, further

submits that had there been any truth in the allegation,

the Informant or the witnesses could have specifically

stated/alleged against the Petitioners, such as on what

date and by what act, the Petitioners subjected the

Informant to torture, but a careful glance of the

materials placed on record would hardly reveal about

any allegation against the Petitioners for commission of

alleged offences. It is also submitted that the Informant

has made some omnibus allegation, such as, the

Petitioners did not provide adequate food or took care of

her or did not provide medical treatment, but these

facts hardly incriminate the Petitioners because there is

neither any specific allegation against the Petitioners for

subjecting O.P.No.2 to torture or cruelty nor was the

omnibus allegation against the Petitioners brought with

convincing supporting materials. In summing up his // 6 //

argument, Mr. H.S. Mishra, prays to quash the

impugned order and the criminal proceeding initiated

against the Petitioners.

4. On the other hand, Mr. P.K. Pattnaik,

learned AGA, however, strongly refutes the prayer of

the Petitioners by inter-alia submitting that the

O.P.No.2-cum-Informant has categorically alleged

against the Petitioners for subjecting her to torture and

cruelty for demand of dowry as well as the allegations

on record disclose commission of offences by the

Petitioners. Learned AGA, accordingly, prays to dismiss

the CRLMC.

5. On the contrary, Mr. D.P. Dhal, learned Sr.

Counsel appearing for O.P. No.2 by referring to the FIR

and statement of witnesses, submits that the Informant

has not only made specific allegation against the

Petitioners, but also has precisely stated about the

torture meted to her by the Petitioners. He by taking

this Court through the FIR and statement of witnesses, // 7 //

points out that the learned trial Court has not committed

any illegality by taking cognizance of offences since the

materials on record disclose prima facie case against the

Petitioners. Accordingly, Mr. D.P. Dhal, learned Sr.

Counsel prays to dismiss the CRLMC.

6. In essence the Petitioners have challenged

the order taking cognizance of offences on the ground

that the allegations brought against them are omnibus

and general in nature, but a perusal of the

complaint/FIR by itself discloses about Petitioners and

their son demanding a cash of Rs.10,000,00/- (Rupees

Ten Lakhs) as additional dowry at the time of marriage

and it is further alleged in the complaint that the

Petitioners refused to take the complainant to their

home, unless their demand is complied with. Besides,

there is allegation against the Petitioners in the

complaint about subjecting the complainant to torture to

coerce her to meet their unlawful demand of dowry.

// 8 //

7. Interestingly, there are cases of over

implication of in-laws in matrimonial dispute by way of

omnibus allegation, but at the same time, there are

genuine cases also. However, each and every case

cannot be viewed in the same spectrum of over

implication of in-laws since the legislature after taking

note of the menace of dowry has enacted Sec. 498-A of

IPC by way of amendment to prevent the greedy

husband and the relatives of husband from coercing the

wife to meet their unlawful demand of dowry. Torture or

cruelty may be either physical or mental as

contemplated in the explanation to Sec. 498-A of IPC.

One thing must be understood in the context of torture

that the intention of the offender is primarily to coerce

the bride to meet the unlawful demand of dowry and if

their exists any intention, even by way of mental act in

the form of use of taunting words or abusing the

sufferer to meet the unlawful demand of dowry may // 9 //

constitute "torture" as contemplated in Sec. 498-A of

IPC.

8. It is undoubtedly true that the inherent power

U/S. 482 of Cr.P.C. by itself makes it obligatory for the

High Court to exercise the same with utmost care and

caution, but when the situation so demands, the same

can be exercised to prevent the abuse of process of any

Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice or to

give effect to any order under Cr.P.C. Normally more is

the power greater is the circumspection before

exercising it. Generally, the High Courts should not

embark upon appreciation of evidence at the stage of

quashing a proceeding and it is not in the domain of the

Court to weigh the evidence or consider the same to be

reliable or not, which is the function of the trial Court.

The inherent powers should not be exercised to stifle a

legitimate prosecution. At the same time, there cannot

be any dispute that the Court at appropriate case may

exercise the inherent power to quash the proceeding // 10 //

such as, where the allegation made in the FIR or the

complainant, even if they are taken at their face value

and accepted in their entirety, do not prima facie

constitute any offence or make out a case against the

accused or where the allegation in the FIR and other

materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not disclose

a cognizable offence. In the present case, the

Petitioners had of course taken the plea of their over

implication by way of general and omnibus allegation,

but what constitute general and omnibus allegation has

to be considered independently in each case by taking

into consideration the allegation made against the

accused persons in the context of dowry torture.

9. This Court is in no manner of about that

while considering the question of quashing of a criminal

proceeding, it would not be proper to appreciate by way

of sifting the materials collected in the course of

investigation including the statements recorded U/S.

161 Cr.P.C., which are purely meant for contradicting // 11 //

the witnesses. In this regard, this Court is fortified with

the decision of Apex Court in Rajeev Kourav Vrs.

Baisahab and others; (2020)3 SCC 317, wherein a

two Judge Bench of the Apex Court dealt with the

question as to the matters that to be considered by the

High Court in quashing the criminal proceedings U/S.

482 Cr.P.C. and it was held therein that the statement

of witnesses recorded U/S.161 Cr.P.C. being fully

inadmissible in evidence could not be taken into

consideration by the Court while adjudicating a petition

filed U/S. 482 Cr.P.C.

10. In the aforesaid situation, when there

appears prima facie allegation against the Petitioners,

this Court does not consider it proper to quash the

criminal proceeding against the Petitioners, more

particularly on conspectus of record and materials

collected by the Investigating Agency submitting

charge-sheet against the Petitioners and others disclose

prima facie allegations and the learned Court of // 12 //

S.D.J.M., Angul having taken cognizance of offences, it

cannot be considered at this stage that the implication

of the Petitioners is wholly on the basis of omnibus and

general allegation so as to quash the criminal

proceedings against them.

11. In the result, the CRLMC sans any merit,

stands dismissed on contest, but in the circumstance

there is no order as to costs.

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

G.SATAPATHY, JUDGE

Orissa High Court, Cuttack The 17th April, 2023, Priyajit