Subhankar Bal And Others vs State Of Odisha And Another
2023 Latest Caselaw 2365 Ori

        IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

                    CRLMC No.835 of 2022

  Subhankar Bal and Others              ....            Petitioners
                                  Ms. Mamata Tripathy, Advocate


                               -Versus-



  State of Odisha and Another             ....   Opposite Parties
                                           Mr. S.K. Mishra, ASC
                          Mr.P.K.Khuntia, Advocate for OP No.2


           CORAM:
           JUSTICE R.K. PATTANAIK

              DATE OF JUDGMENT:23.03.2023

1.

The petitioners by invoking the inherent jurisdiction have approached this Court for quashing of the charges framed by the learned S.D.J.M.(Sadar), Cuttack for offences under Sections 498- A, 323, 406 & 506 read with 34 IPC and Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act by order dated 23rd March, 2021 and the entire proceeding on the grounds inter alia that the materials on record were not properly examined and there has been no judicial application of mind since the complaint at the instance of opposite party No.2 was in order to wreak vengeance after petitioner No.1 initiated a proceeding before the family court for dissolution of marriage which was managed by misrepresentation, deception and fraud.

2. The opposite party No.2 filed the complaint in 1CC Case No.843 of 2015 which was registered as Mahila P.S. Case No.59 and finally the chargesheet was filed. Later to the receipt of chargesheet, the learned court below took cognizance of the court below vide Annexure-9.

Subhankar Bal and Others Vrs. State of Odisha and Another

3. Heard Ms. Tripathy, learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr. Mishra, learned counsel for the State and Mr. Khuntia, learned counsel for opposite party No.2.

4. It is stated that CRLMC No.676 of 2017 was filed against the order of cognizance under Annexure-9 which was allowed in part and the criminal proceeding as against two of the accused was quashed. Ms. Tripathy, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that opposite party No.2 had health issues before marriage, the fact which was suppressed by her family and marriage with petitioner No.1 was allowed to be solemnized with deception. It is made to understand that opposite party No.2 was diagnosed with kidney related problem and had to go for treatment and transplantation at Apollo Hospital, Bhubaneswar. During that time, according to Ms. Tripathy, for the reason that opposite party No.2 did have medical condition prior to her marriage and it was not disclosed, the relationship between both the families deteriorated, as a result of which, on receiving threat messages, the same was intimated to the Commissionerate Police and others in the month of March, 2015 and shortly thereafter in May, 2015, petitioner No.1 filed the case in the Family Court, Cuttack. It is alleged that as a counterblast, opposite party No.2 filed the complaint June, 2015 and therefore, Ms. Tripathy, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that all such facts are to be taken cognizance of to quash the proceeding. It is also submitted that the learned court below failed in its duty by framing charge against the petitioners which is based on a false complaint.

5. Mr. Mishra, learned ASC and Mr. Khuntia, leaned counsel for opposite party No.2 submit that the chargesheet revealed a prima facie case and therefore, the learned below had no other option except in framing charge and hence, it cannot be held as without any basis or justification. It is further submitted that there cannot

Subhankar Bal and Others Vrs. State of Odisha and Another

be an elaborate analysis as the court which received chargesheet is required to proceed against the petitioners on a presumption that the offences have been committed by them which is again not a final judgment. Mr. Khuntia, learned counsel for opposite party No.2 cited the following decisions of the Apex Court in the case of Bhawna Bai Vrs. Ghanshyam and Others decided in Criminal Appeal No.820 of 2019 and disposed of on 3rd December, 2022 besides Amit Kumar Vrs. Ramesh Chander and Others (2012) 9 SCC 460 to contend that at the time of framing of charge, detailed reasons are not to be recorded but the court was required to ensure that a prima facie case is made out sufficient to frame charge and subject the petitioners to trial.

6. The marriage between the opposite parties was held in 2014 and thereafter, opposite party No.2 joined her in-laws house and during that time, as according to the petitioners, she was noticed of having health issues and because of her week physical condition, the marriage could not be consummated and finally, she was diagnosed with chronic Kidney disease and both of kidneys were found completely damaged. The petitioners realized that such medical condition of opposite party No.2 was not revealed to them rather concealed. Sometime thereafter, it is made to appear that opposite party No.2 had kidney transplantation in the month of February, 2015 and in a span of a month or so, petitioner No.1 approached the Family Court, whereas, opposite party No.2 filed the complaint in the court of S.D.J.M.(S), Cuttack which was on 5th June, 2015. It is contended by Ms.Tripathy that opposite party No.2 in order to escape from the blame and as retaliation filed the false complaint when petitioner No.1 moved the Family Court alleging that the consent for the marriage was obtained by misrepresentation and fraud as her medical condition was suppressed.

Subhankar Bal and Others Vrs. State of Odisha and Another

7. At the time of framing of charge, it is well settled law that the basic ingredient of the offences whether to be present in a case chargesheeted is to be looked into. A court is not to examine the veracity of the claim of the prosecution or truthfulness or otherwise of the allegations made but to go through the chargesheet in order to ascertain if charges could be framed or not. A slightest suspicion is sufficient to frame charge against the accused unless the allegation appears absurd or grossly untrue. Furthermore, detailed analysis of evidence is not to be carried out at such stage of the proceeding nor the court is obliged to assign a detailed reason for framing charge. The court cannot also consider extraneous materials except referring to the chargesheet unless situation otherwise demand, while framing charge against the accused. The above is what precisely a court is to bear in mind at the stage of framing of charge.

8. Ms.Tripathy, learned counsel for the petitioners relied on the decisions, such as, State through Inspector of Police Vrs. Arun Kumar and Another 2015 (2) SCC (Crl.) 1996; X and Another Vrs. State 2019 (3) JCC 3103 and Sundar Babu and Others Vrs. State of Tamilnadu 2009 (5) SCALE 1 to contend that the complaint is a false one filed by opposite party No.2 which is the basis of submission of chargesheet and the learned court below did not appreciate the materials placed before him and proceeded to frame the charge against the petitioners being oblivious of the settled position of law as enunciated by the Apex Court in the decisions (supra). The contention is that as a counterblast, the complaint is filed with vague and false allegations. It is claimed that after the proceeding for dissolution of marriage was initiated by petitioner No.1, such complaint was filed by opposite party No.2. However the Court finds that in a gap of a month or two both the cases have been filed and admittedly, the complaint is latter to the divorce proceeding. Mere seeking divorce by

Subhankar Bal and Others Vrs. State of Odisha and Another

petitioner No.1 which was followed by the complaint cannot be a ground to suspect the intent of opposite party No.2, who alleged to have been ill-treated and was also under severe medical condition. In A. Arun Kumar (supra), the Apex Court held that the probative value of material on record cannot be assessed but before framing of charge, the Court must apply its judicial mind and if two views are possible one of which gives rise to suspicion as distinguished from the other, it would be within the right to discharge the accused. It is also settled law that a legitimate prosecution is not to be stifled at the threshold or midway by exercising inherent jurisdiction accepting the defence plea. However, there is no hard and fast rule for exercising extra- ordinary jurisdiction for quashing the proceedings provided a case is made out for the same. The decisions which have been relied upon outlines the basic principles at the time of framing of charge and for quashing of the criminal proceedings which are also the established legal position. In the present case, when the evidence on record and defence plea is pitted against each other, the Court finds that the counter allegation needs examination to ascertain as to which of the parties to be at fault.

9. On a reading of the FIR, it is revealed that opposite party No.2 even suspected the character of petitioner No.1 and also alleged that there was demand of cash which was from the side of petitioner Nos.2 and 3, who silently supported her husband. It is also alleged that opposite party No.2 was assaulted and abused in filthy language by petitioner Nos.2 and 3 at the time when she was staying with them. The callous attitude of the petitioners and the ill-treatment she was subjected to stands described in the FIR. The said allegations are outrightly denied by the petitioners, who instead claimed that they were deceived with regard to the health condition of opposite party No.2, who as a counterblast filed the complaint to retaliate the proceeding before the Family Court.

Subhankar Bal and Others Vrs. State of Odisha and Another

The opposite party No.2 whether had health issues prior to her marriage with petitioner No.1 and the same was allegedly suppressed is a matter to be examined during trial as one the grounds to suspect the veracity of the allegations in complaint. It could well neigh be possible that opposite party No.2 might have had health problems which was detected after her marriage in 2014. The fact of deception which is alleged by the petitioners for not having disclosed any such health conditions of opposite party No.2 as a means of defence is again a matter is to be thrashed out during trial. The allegations in the FIR regarding ill-treatment for the stated reasons are to be examined by the learned court below. It is not that the complaint was filed long after the proceeding before the Family Court initiated by petitioner No.1. So, therefore, to allege that the complaint is outrightly a false one and a counterblast for the proceeding in the Family Court would be a premature statement. Hence, the conclusion is that all such aspects as highlighted upon by the petitioners should be left open for the consideration of the trial court. The acceptance of the defence plea which needs consideration in threadbare when the charge is framed would not be justified. Without expressing anything on the merits of the case, the Court arrives at a logical conclusion that the learned court below considering the chargesheet and other materials cannot be said to have committed any serious error in framing charge.

10. Accordingly, it is ordered.

11. In the result, the CRLMC stands dismissed.

(R.K. Pattanaik) Judge UKSahoo