Manjulata Jena @ Majula vs State Of Orissa
2023 Latest Caselaw 8751 Ori

             IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
                         CRLMC No.1616 of 2020

            Manjulata Jena @ Majula      ....     Petitioners
            Jena and another
                                   Mr. M.K. Panda, Advocate

                                        -versus-
            State of Orissa                         ....       Opp. Party
                                                 Mr. S.S. Pradhan, AGA
                                          CORAM:

                            JUSTICE G. SATAPATHY

                                      ORDER

Order No.                           08.08.2023

   07.      1.   This    matter    is    taken     up    through    Hybrid

Arrangement (Virtual /Physical Mode).

2. This application filed U/S. 482 Cr.P.C. by the Petitioners seeking to quash the order passed on 06.06.2019 and 20.06.2019 by learned JMFC(R), Cuttack in G.R. Case No. 1712(A) of 2014 issuing NBWAs against the Petitioners and consequently, the criminal proceeding arising thereon against them on the ground that the co-accused husband, parents-in- law and brother-in-law had already been acquitted in the original file for want of evidence.

3. It appears from the record that the Petitioners challenges the impugned orders and consequently, the criminal proceeding against them on the ground of // 2 //

acquittal of co-accused husband, parents-in-law and brother-in-law of the deceased, but they were not at fault in facing the trial, since no charge sheet was filed against them, they could not get opportunity to face the trial in the original file. It is further stated by them subsequently, the I.O. obtained NBWAs against them by successfully praying to the Court by the impugned orders and, therefore, the Petitioners having no scope to face the trial, it cannot be said that they had avoided the trial in original file. Besides, the plea of the Petitioners that the issuance of NBWAs against them was without providing any opportunity to appear in the Court, which was illegal and arbitrary.

4. In the course of hearing of the CRLMC, Mr. M.K. Panda, learned counsel for the Petitioners by referring to the certified copy of the judgment and deposition of witnesses recorded in original record in G.R. Case No. 1712 of 2014 submits that none of the witnesses had ever supported the prosecution case against the husband, parents-in-law and brother-in-law of the deceased resulting in clean acquittal of those accused persons, but the present Petitioners being married sister-in-law were also not present at the relevant time of occurrence and they, therefore, cannot be held liable for any of the offences. It is further submitted that even if the materials on record are taken into consideration, only some omnibus allegation being // 3 //

levelled against the Petitioners, no case for any offence is attracted against them and the present proceeding against the petitioners is nothing but an abuse of process of Court, which can be rectified by quashing the impugned orders and criminal proceeding arising thereon against the petitioners.

5. On the other hand, Mr. S.S. Pradhan, learned AGA, however, strongly opposes the prayer advanced on behalf of the Petitioners and he inter-alia submits that since the Petitioners had not faced the trial, it would be premature to say that the proceeding against them is an abuse of process of Court and it cannot be quashed.

6. After having considered the rival submissions made upon perusal of the record, this Court finds the Petitioners to have filed the certified copy of judgment passed in G.R. Case No. 1712 of 2014 along with copies of depositions, which on perusal reveal that none of the witnesses even the Informant had supported the prosecution case and all of them have simply stated something else which would not incriminate any of the accused persons. It appears to the utter dismay of the Court that the father of the deceased being examined as PW1 had come up with a new story while deposing evidence before the Court by deposing <on the relevant day of occurrence, while his daughter was cooking, the kerosene stove blew off // 4 //

resulting in the deceased catching hold of fire and sustained burn injuries on her person and while undergoing treatment at Hospital, she died=.

7. Besides, it appears from the deposition of Doctor PW-8 that the deceased died of ante mortem burn injuries and the possibility of suicidal death cannot be ruled out on account of burn injuries. Further, the copy of judgment itself goes to reveal that co-accused husband, parents-in-law and brother-in-law having charged for offence U/Ss.498-A/306/201/34 of IPC had already been acquitted in a trial for want of evidence. It is also not disputed in this case that the Petitioners are married sister-in-laws of the deceased and they had not been charge sheeted in the preliminary charge sheet for which they could not face the trial. One more aspect is that the case was registered on 21.12.2014, but when charge sheet was submitted, there was no mention about the Petitioners for their role played in the case, except by stating therein that two persons are yet to be arrested and subsequently, on 06.06.2019, the IO prayed for issuance of NBWAs against the Petitioners which were issued by the learned JMFC(R), Cuttack on 20.06.2019. It is therefore, very clear that since the time of submission, the preliminary charge-sheet on 19.04.2015 till NBWAs were issued on 20.06.2019, no step appears to have been taken by the IO to apprehend the Petitioners, but // 5 //

in the meantime, on 04.11.2016, co-accused husband, parents-in-law and brother-in-law had already been acquitted of the charges and on 08.07.2019, the IO only to complete a formality submitted a charge sheet against the Petitioners.

8. In the judgment, the learned trial Court has observed at paragraph-11 <there is no such iota of evidence available on record to establish that in any manner the accused persons had tortured the deceased at any point of time demanding dowry or abetted the commission her to commit suicide. Rather it is found that the evidence adduced by the prosecution are wholly unreliable to establish its case beyond all reasonable doubt against the accused persons=. In the aforesaid situation and taking into consideration the acquittal of co-accused husband, parents-in-law and brother-in-law in a due trial and there being some omnibus allegation appearing against the present Petitioners and taking into account the law laid down by the Apex Court in Kahkashan Kausar @ Sonam & others Vrs. State of Bihar and others; (2022) 6 SCC 599, this Court considers that the criminal proceeding instituted against the Petitioners together with the impugned orders are nothing, but an abuse of process of Court and sending them to the trial in aforesaid situation would amount to further harassment and humiliation to the Petitioners. In // 6 //

such situation, to secure the ends of the justice, this Court considers that the impugned orders together with the criminal proceeding instituted against the petitioners are liable to be quashed.

9. In the result, the CRLMC stands allowed on contest, but in the circumstance, there is no order as to costs. The impugned orders together with the criminal proceeding against the petitioners in G.R. Case No. 1712(A) of 2014 are hereby quashed.

(G. Satapathy) Judge S.Sasmal

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: SUBHASMITA SASMAL Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa Date: 14-Aug-2023 10:31:02