Biswaroopa Pati @ Mohanty vs State Of Odisha & Another
2023 Latest Caselaw 6817 Ori

     IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

                CRLMC No.410 of 2020
  (In the matter of an appeal under Section 482 of the
  Code of Criminal Procedure).


  Biswaroopa Pati @ Mohanty               ....   Petitioner

                       -versus-
  State of Odisha & another               ... Opposite parties

  For Petitioner              :   Mr. G. Mishra,Sr. Advocate
  For Opposite                :   Mr. S.S.Pradhan, AGA for
  Parties                         O.P. No.1
                                  Mr.B.Pujari, Advocate for
                                  O.P. No.2


       CORAM:
                        JUSTICE G. SATAPATHY

                  DATE OF ARGUMENT: 03.05.2023
                  DATE OF JUDGMENT: 01.06.2023

G. Satapathy, J.

1. By way of this application U/S. 482 of Cr.P.C. the

petitioner seeks to quash the criminal proceeding

instituted against her in G.R. Case No. 1818 of 2018

arising out of Cuttack Mahila P.S. Case No. 93 of

2018 pending in the file of learned S.D.J.M.(Sadar),

Cuttack on the grounds inter alia some omnibus and

unspecific allegations have been made against her.

2. The facts in background are that the petitioner

being the elder sister of the groom is the sister-in-law

of informant-bride and on 30.06.2017 the informant

bride got married to the younger brother of the

petitioner, but it was alleged by the informant that

she was subjected to various mental and physical

torture by her husband and other in-laws for demand

of more dowry. Accordingly, the bride had lodged an

FIR against her husband and in-laws including the

petitioner before the IIC, Cuttack Mahila P.S. for

commission of offence punishable U/Ss. 498-A/294/

506/34 of IPC read with Section 4 of D.P. Act which

was registered vide Cuttack Mahila P.s. Case No. 93

dated 25.09.2018 and the matter was investigated

into resulting in submission of charge sheet against

the petitioner and others for the aforesaid offences

under which cognizance was taken by the learned

S.D.J.M.(Sadar), Cuttack.

Feeling aggrieved with the order taking cognizance

of offences, the petitioner has approached this Court

in an application U/S. 482 of Cr.P.C. seeking to quash

the criminal proceeding instituted against her on the

grounds inter alia that no offence is made out against

her and there is only some omnibus/general and

unspecific allegations have been made by the

informant against her.

3. In the course of hearing of CRLMC, Mr.Goutam

Mishra, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner has

submitted the petitioner is the married younger

sister-in-law of the informant who has made some

reckless and vague allegations against her to rope

the present petitioner in this case along with husband

and in-laws. It is pointed out by the learned Senior

Counsel that there is in fact no allegation appearing

against the petitioner in the F.I.R. except some

casual reference to her name and there is a long

delay in lodging of F.I.R. and there are some bald and

omnibus allegations which are unspecific have been

stated to be mentioned in the F.I.R. and a bare

perusal of the statement of the informant and other

witnesses would further unveil only omnibus

allegations against the present petitioner who being a

married lady resides in a separate mess than that of

her parental home. It is, accordingly, submitted by

the learned Senior Counsel that the present

proceeding against the petitioner is nothing but an

abuse of process of Court and the same may kindly

be quashed. In order to buttress his submissions,

learned Senior Counsel has cited the authorities in (i)

Kahkashan Kausar @ Sonam and Others vs.

State of Bihar and Others; (2022) 6 SCC 599,

(ii) Preeti Gupta and Another vs. State of

Jharkhand and Another; (2010) 7 SCC 667 and

(iii) Seenivasan vs. State and Another; (2019) 8

SCC 642.

4. Mr. S.S. Pradhan, learned A.G.A. has submitted

that there is not only prima facie allegations against

the petitioner, but also the allegations appearing

against her is specific for commission of offences

whereunder cognizance of the offences has already

been taken by the learned S.D.J.M. (S), Cuttack. It is

further submitted that when a criminal case is sought

to be quashed at initial stage, it has to be

demonstrated on a conspectus of record that the

uncontroverted allegations made in the F.I.R. and the

evidence collected in support of the same do not

disclose commission of any offence or make out the

case against the accused and in case the allegations

made in the F.I.R. or complaint taken at their face

value and accepted in entirety do not prima facie

constitute any case against the accused, it would be

in the realm of the High Court to quash such criminal

proceeding, but when the case at hand discloses

strong prima facie case against the petitioner, the

criminal proceeding cannot and ought not to be

quashed by merely terming it as to have been

brought on some omnibus and general allegations.

Learned A.G.A. accordingly has prayed to dismiss the

CRLMC.

5. Mr. Basudev Pujari, learned counsel appearing for

O.P. No. 02 has submitted that the submission of

charge sheet itself is indicative of prima facie case

against the petitioner for commission of offences and

there is specific allegations made against the present

petitioner by the informant in her F.I.R. and the same

has been substantiated not only by her statement

U/S. 161 of Cr.P.C., but also by the statement of her

parents and other witnesses. It is further submitted

that, the present petitioner has played a definite

pivotal role in the marital dispute of the informant

and her husband and she was instrumental in driving

out the informant from her matrimonial house. Mr.

Pujari, learned counsel for O.P. No. 02 has also relied

upon the decisions in Rajeev Kourav vs. Baisahab

and Others; (2020) 3 SCC 317 to contend that

assessing the statement of witness U/S. 161 of

Cr.P.C. to quash the criminal proceeding is

impermissible in the eye of law and it would be highly

improper to appreciate contradictions/inconsistencies

in the statement of witnesses at the stage of 482

Cr.P.C. In summing up his argument, learned counsel

for O.P. No. 02 has prayed to dismiss the CRLMC by

relying upon another decision in Md. Allauddin

Khan Vrs. the State of Bihar & others in Criminal

Appeal No. 675 of 2019 (Arising out of S.L.P.(Crl.)

No. 1151 of 2018 disposed of on 15.04.2019).

6. Admittedly, the petitioner is the sister-in-law of

the informant and she has approached this Court to

quash the criminal proceeding against her on the

grounds inter-alia that some general and omnibus

allegations have been alleged against her by the

informant. It is, however, clear that the offence of

dowry torture U/S. 498-A of IPC has often being

misused against the in-laws to pressurize the family

of the husband and there is a tendency of over

implication of relatives of the husband who often

reside in separate mess or even at a distant place

than the matrimonial home of the bride. In such

situation, the Court has onerous duty to check the

over implication of the relatives of a husband. It is

also true that there are some genuine cases of dowry

torture in which the mother-in-law and sister-in-law

play vital role, apart from the errant husband and

other in-laws and the Court has to be very careful

while dealing with matter concerning matrimonial

disputes between husband and wife to separate

genuine case from cases of over implication and

vexatious cases. Section 498-A of IPC was enacted to

ensure to prevent a married woman from harassment

and cruelty at the hands of husband or relatives of

husband of such woman, but it is a matter of great

concern that a large number of cases continued to be

filed U/S. 498-A of IPC alleging harassment of

married woman and often such complaints are

made/filed in the heat of passion over trivial issues

and even many such complaints are not bonafide,

however, some cases are genuine cases of dowry

torture.

7. On proceeding to appreciate the rival submissions,

this Court now falls back upon the allegation leveled

against the petitioner in the FIR which on plain

perusal discloses some allegation against the

petitioner such as "she and her father forced the

father of the informant to arrange the marriage at

Pramod Resort at Cuttack" and "she and her mother

expressed anguish on the informant for failure to

bring more gold ornaments and not agreeing to keep

her gold ornaments in the locker of her mother-in-

law" and "they used to inflict mental torture on her"

and "her husband and her younger sister-in-law had

been scolding her very often". In concluding part of

the FIR, the informant has alleged that since her

husband, sister-in-law(petitioner) and mother-in-law

had been torturing her using filthy language to get

valuable property from her parents and depriving her

from her conjugal life, she lodged the FIR. The

informant has also stated that they had agreed for

the marriage without any dowry. The statement of

the informant also contains more or less the same

allegation as stated in the FIR. The statement of the

father of the informant also reveals that he was

compelled to arrange marriage at Pramod Resort on

the pressure of the petitioner and the petitioner and

her mother were looking down upon the informant

which is also the allegation as found in the statement

of the mother of the informant.

8. In the course of argument, learned counsel for

O.P. No.2 has relied upon the decision in Rajeev

Kourav(supra) to contend that appreciation of

statement of witnesses in a proceeding U/S. 482 of

Cr.P.C. is impermissible and this Court is also

conscious of such principle as laid down by Apex

Court, but when the material allegations brought

against an accused in statement of witness and FIR

do not disclose commission of any offence, it is not

legally tenable to prosecute such accused against

whom there is no credible or reliable allegations

leveled. On the other hand, the decision relied on by

the petitioner in Kahkashan Kausar @

Sonam(supra), the Apex Court upon noticing

absence of specific and distinct allegations against

the appellants has allowed the application to quash

the FIR against the appellants. In quashing the FIR,

the Apex Court in the aforesaid decision has further

held at paragraph-18 as under:-

" Coming to the facts of this case, upon a perusal of the contents of the FIR dated 01.04.19, it is revealed that general allegations are levelled against the Appellants. The complainant alleged that "all accused harassed her mentally and threatened her of terminating her pregnancy". Furthermore, no specific and distinct allegations have been made against either of the Appellants herein, i.e., none of the Appellants have been attributed any specific role in furtherance of the general allegations made against them. This simply leads to a situation wherein one fails to ascertain the role played by each accused in furtherance of the offence. The allegations are therefore general and omnibus and can at best be said to have been made out on account of small skirmishes. Insofar as husband is concerned, since he has not appealed against the order of the High court, we have not examined the veracity of allegations made against him. However, as far as the Appellants are concerned, the allegations made against them being general and omnibus, do not warrant prosecution".

9. In this case, of course, an affidavit has been filed

by O.P. No.2 to indicate that the petitioner is not

residing in separate mess, but she very often

resides/remains in the house of her father

Nrushingha Charan Pati with the other accused

persons, but how far such an affidavit would be

relevant in this case is never understood since a

married woman normally resides in her matrimonial

home unless she has got some matrimonial disputes

with her in-laws and in this case, there is hardly any

allegation against the petitioner for having any

dispute with her in-laws. Besides, the decision in Md.

Allauddin Khan(supra) has been relied upon by

O.P. No.2, but the same being for offences punishable

U/Ss. 323/379/34 of IPC is not applicable to the

present situation wherein the petitioner has sought

for quashing of complaint on the ground of omnibus

and general allegations made against her by relying

upon the decision in Kahkashan Kausar @

Sonam(supra).

10. A perusal of the allegations made against the

petitioner on record, this Court does not find any

specific allegation against the petitioner, rather all the

allegations made against the petitioner as narrated in

the preceding paragraph are nothing sort of some

omnibus and unspecific allegations leveled against

her and thereby, the principle as laid down by Apex

Court in Kahkashan Kausar @ Sonam(supra),

would enure to the benefit of the petitioner.

11. In view of the discussions made hereinabove and

taking into consideration the law laid down by the

Apex Court in Kahkashan Kausar @

Sonam(supra) and there being some omnibus and

unspecific allegations leveled against the petitioner

who is the married sister-in-law of the informant, this

Court does not find any justifiable reason to summon

the petitioner to face the proceeding in the aforesaid

case and the criminal proceeding, thereby, is nothing

but an abuse of process of Court and to secure the

ends of justice, the criminal proceeding against the

petitioner is required to be quashed. It is, however,

made clear that the criminal proceeding against rest

of the accused persons having being not challenged

and the learned Senior Counsel in the course of

argument has clearly submitted to have no objection

if the criminal proceeding continues against the rest

of the accused persons, the criminal proceeding may

continue against the rest of the accused persons.

12. In the result, the CRLMC stands allowed on

contest, but in the circumstance there is no order as

to costs. The criminal proceeding against the

petitioner in G.R. Case No. 1818 of 2018 arising out

of Cuttack Mahila P.S. Case No. 93 of 2018 pending

in the file of learned S.D.J.M.(Sadar), Cuttack is

hereby quashed.

(G. Satapathy) Judge

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: KISHORE KUMAR SAHOO Designation: SecretaryOrissa High Court, Cuttack, Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT Dated the 1st day of June, 2023/Kishore OF ORISSA Date: 02-Jun-2023 11:18:26