Prafulla Kumar Behera And Others vs State And Another
2023 Latest Caselaw 1008 Ori

            IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
                          CRLMC No.927 of 2013

      Prafulla Kumar Behera and Others     ....           Petitioners
                                  Ms. Deepali Mohapatra, Advocate


                                       -Versus-


      State and Another                         ....     Opposite Parties
                                         Mr. T.K. Praharaj, SC, OP No.1
                      Mr. Sidharth Prasad Das-A, Advocate for OP No.2

                CORAM:
                JUSTICE R.K. PATTANAIK

                     DATE OF JUDGMENT: 31.01.2023


1.

By invoking inherent jurisdiction, the petitioners have approached this Court for quashing of the order of cognizance dated 3rd November, 2012 and the entire criminal proceeding in connection with G.R. Case No.98 of 2010 corresponding to Aska P.S. Case No.48 dated 7th March, 2010 pending in the court of learned J.M.F.C., Aska on the grounds inter alia that the same is not tenable in law in absence of materials on record with specific and individual overt acts being alleged.

2. In fact, the FIR (Annexure-1) was lodged on 6th March, 2010 by alleging therein that the informant's daughter was given in marriage to one of the accused persons, namely, son of petitioner No.3 in the year 2009 and at the time of marriage, there was demand from the other side which was met, however, further demand of Rs.25,000/- towards dowry was received and due to its non-fulfillment, the victim was subjected to ill-treatment. The details of the events that followed till the time the report was lodged stand described in the Annexure-1. At last, on completion of investigation, the petitioners and the accused husband stood chargesheeted under the alleged

Prafulla Kumar Behera and Others Vrs. State and Another

offence. By order dated 3rd November, 2012, the learned court below took cognizance of the offence under Section 498-A read with 34 IPC against all the accused persons including the petitioners. The said order of cognizance under Annexure-4 besides the criminal proceeding as a whole has been challenged by the petitioners.

3. Heard Ms. Mohapatra, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Praharaj, learned counsel for the State-opposite party and Mr. Das- A, learned counsel for opposite party No.2.

4. Ms. Mohapatra, learned counsel for the submits that there is no specific allegation so to say against the petitioners who have been implicated along with accused husband and it is based on a chargesheet filed before the learned J.M.F.C., Aska, Ganjam in G.R. Case No.492 of 2009, which is not tenable in law. Ms. Mohapatra further submits that the statements of witnesses recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. do not make out a case against the petitioners and hence, not only the impugned order under Annexure-4 but also the criminal proceeding in G.R. Case No.98 of 2010 shall have to be quashed in exercise of the Court's inherent jurisdiction. While contending so, Ms. Mohapatra, learned counsel for the petitioners cites a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Geeta Mehrotra and Another Vrs. State of U.P. and Another (2012) 10 SCC 741 and it is submitted that in absence of any clear and active involvement of the petitioners being revealed, the criminal proceeding as against them is unjustified and thus, liable to be terminated in view of the law and ratio laid down in the judgment (supra).

5. Mr. Praharaj, learned counsel for the State as well as Mr. Das-A, learned counsel for opposite party No.2 submit that the FIR disclosed the alleged mischief committed by the in-laws and after investigation by the local police, they have been chargesheeted under the alleged offences and no real ground is made out for interference with the impugned order under Annexure-4 so also the

Prafulla Kumar Behera and Others Vrs. State and Another

criminal proceeding. It is contended that the informant alleged involvement of the petitioners which is also revealed from her statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and therefore, the criminal proceeding should not be quashed on any such ground as has been prayed for.

6. Gone through the contents of the FIR i.e. Annexure-1. From the said report, it is made to reveal that the marriage between the accused husband and the informant's daughter was held on 27th February, 2009 and during that time, certain demands were made and satisfied. It is further alleged therein that the petitioners asked the daughter of informant as to why demand of Rs.25,000/- was not fulfilled and in that connection, she was ill-treated. Ms. Mohapatra, learned counsel for the petitioner referring to the statements of the informant as well as other witnesses recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. contends that no any specific allegation appears to have been made against the petitioners and specially petitioner Nos.1 and 2.The decision in Geeta Mehrotra (supra) and the ratio therein is highlighted upon by Ms. Mohapatra, learned counsel for the petitioners with the submission that casual references or general allegation is not sufficient to criminally prosecute the in- laws, whereas, learned counsel for the State and opposite party No.2 defend the filing of chargesheet. The Court is to examine the contentions and to reach at a conclusion as to whether it is sufficient to sustain a criminal charge vis-à-vis the petitioners.

7. In Geeta Mehrotra (supra), some allegations were made against the sister-in-law in a similar case of dowry demand and ill-treatment and after considering the same, the Apex Court concluded that the criminal prosecution cannot be sustained. While referring to a decision in Ramesh Vrs. State of Tamilnadu (2005) 3 SCC 507, the Apex Court in the aforesaid case observed that the allegations against the sister-in-law was on account of anxiety of the informant

Prafulla Kumar Behera and Others Vrs. State and Another

victim to rope her in along with the husband's other relatives and it was against a married sister of the husband, who was not living with the family of the informant and under such circumstances quashed the criminal proceeding. Similarly, in G.V. Rao Vrs. L.H.V. Prasad (2000) 3 SCC 693 which has been referred to in Geeta Mehrotra (supra), the Apex Court quashed the complaint arising out of a matrimonial dispute when all the family members were involved and implicated. The observation in G.V. Rao(supra) was quoted by the Apex Court in Geeta Mehrotra (supra) which is to the effect that there has been an outburst of matrimonial disputes in recent times; that a marriage is a sacred ceremony, the main purpose of which is to enable the young couple to settle down in life and live peacefully, however, little matrimonial skirmishes suddenly erupt which often assume serious proportion resulting in commission of heinous crime in which elders of the family are also involved with the result that the persons who could have counselled and brought about rapprochement are rendered helpless them being arrayed as accused in criminal case: that there are many other reasons which need not be mentioned for not encouraging matrimonial litigations so that the parties may ponder over their defaults and terminate disputes amicably by mutual agreement. At last in Geeta Mehrotra (supra), the Apex Court concluded that if there is a casual reference against the in-laws without any active involvement alleged, the proceeding as against them should not be allowed to continue and accordingly, in the aforesaid case, the prosecution was quashed.

8. In the instant case, it is to be ascertained as to what is the specific allegation against the petitioners and if at all any individual and independent role is attributed against them. The informant alleged that the petitioners asked her daughter about the demand of Rs.20,000/- for having not been fulfilled. It is alleged that thereafter the ill-treatment started and the victim daughter was finally left high and dry and abandoned. A general allegation appears to have been

Prafulla Kumar Behera and Others Vrs. State and Another

made in the FIR that the informant's daughter was subjected to mental and physical torture. As to what role the petitioners independently played or whether each of them had committed any mischief is not revealed in Annexure-1. However, it is made to appear that the family of petitioner No.3 had certain issues with the informant which is discernable from the latter's statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. Some of the witnesses whose statements have also been recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. have deposed in a similar fashion. It is made to understand that some disturbance was there between the both sides with regard to the acceptance of the victim on account of her being from a different community and in that regard, the grievance is directed against informant. The indulgence of petitioner No.4 is also alleged which is to the effect that he is responsible for filing a false complaint in 1CC Case No.37 of 2009. The petitioner No.3 is the father-n-law of the informant's daughter. Though there is no specific allegation against each of the petitioners, the Court finds that petitioner Nos.3 and 4 are alleged to be involved more prominently than others which led to the situation to deteriorate further. In fact, for an incident dated 18th May, 2009, petitioner No.4 had been to the parental home of the victim to hand over all the household articles which is claimed to be on the demand of the informant's family but denied by the latter that led to the filing of the complaint in 1CC Case No.37 of 2009. Having regard to the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, the Court finds that there is no specific allegation in so far as petitioner Nos.1 and 2 are concerned. The petitioner No.2 is the sister-in-law, whereas, petitioner No.1 is the former's husband and as such, brother-in-law of the victim. Except general allegations attributed against them, the Court does not find any specific incident or instances described in the FIR i.e. Annexure-1 to show that they had been actively involved in the alleged ill-treatment. As decided in Geeta Mehrotra (supra), mere bald allegation or casual reference as

Prafulla Kumar Behera and Others Vrs. State and Another

to the involvement of the in-laws by itself would not be sufficient to criminally prosecute them. The FIR does not reveal nor the statements under Section 161 Cr.P.C. including that of the informant do reveal any individual role or specific instances with regard to the overt acts being alleged and as to in the manner petitioner No. 1 and 2 participated and contributed towards the ill-treatment meted out to the victim. Even though the allegation is not clearly pointed against the other two petitioners but as it appears, they did play some incriminating role while dealing with the matrimonial dispute. The conclusion of the Court is therefore that the criminal proceeding in so far as petitioner Nos.1 and 2 is concerned and for the fact that petitioner No.2 is a married sister-in-law and stays at a different place with her husband, namely, petitioner No.1 and in absence of active participation or involvement being alleged against them, they should not have been roped in and criminally prosecuted at the behest of the informant.

9. Accordingly, it is ordered.

10. In the result, the CRLMC stands allowed in part. Consequently, the order of cognizance dated 3rd November, 2012 and the criminal proceeding in connection with G.R. Case No.98 of 2010 corresponding to Aska P.S. Case No.48 dated 7th March, 2010 pending in the court of learned J.M.F.C., Aska is hereby quashed vis- à-vis petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 and not the other petitioners for the reasons indicated herein before.

(R.K. Pattanaik) Judge U.K. Sahoo