Jajnyaseni Panda vs State Of Odisha
2023 Latest Caselaw 10776 Ori

                 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

                           CRLMC No. 3584 of 2022

        Jajnyaseni Panda                      ...            Petitioner
                                          Mr.B.K.Mishra, Advocate
                                   -versus-

        State of Odisha                       ...        Opposite Party
                                                Mr.S.S.Pradhan, AGA

                                  CORAM:
                           JUSTICE G. SATAPATHY

                                   ORDER(ORAL)

Order No.                           04.09.2023

 05.        1.     This   matter   is   taken     up   through   Hybrid

Arrangement (Virtual /Physical Mode).

2. This is an application U/S. 482 of Cr.P.C. by the married sinister-in-law of the informant seeking to quash the criminal proceeding instituted against her in G.R. Case No. 587 of 2021 arising out of Purusottampur P.S. Case No. 603 of 2021 pending in the file of learned J.M.F.C., Purusottampur for offences punishable U/Ss. 498-A/506/34 of the IPC read with Section 4 of D.P. Act on the grounds inter alia that some omnibus and unspecific allegations have been made against her.

3. An overview of the facts involved in this case are the informant is the wife of younger brother of the petitioner and their marriage was solemnized on 19.07.2017 in presence of relatives and friends of the

parties. It is alleged that at the time of marriage, the husband, parents-in-law and sister-in-laws of the informant had demanded cash of Rs.1,00,000/- as a dowry, but the mother of the informant could only pay an amount of Rs.60,000/- along with gold chain, finger ring and household articles. It was also claimed that prior to the marriage, Rs.40,000/- was paid to the groom and accordingly, the informant had stayed in the house of the groom after the marriage. It was further alleged that being dissatisfied with the dowry, the husband, parents-in-law and sister-in-laws of the informant including the petitioner were subjecting the informant to torture and cruelty which forced the family members of the informant to withdraw the E.P.F. and to pay an amount of Rs.23,000/-, but the in-laws demanded Rs.10,00,000/- for purchase of a house which resulted in continuation of torture on the informant. On this incident, subsequently an FIR was lodged by the informant and the investigation in Purusottampur P.S. Case No. 603 of 2021 ensued which resulted in submission of charge sheet against the petitioner and others and consequently cognizance was taken by the learned J.M.F.C., Purusottampur vide order dated 17.02.2022 in G.R. Case No. 587 of 2021 for offences U/Ss. 498-A/506/34 of the IPC read with Section 4 of D.P. Act and process was accordingly issued against the petitioner and others. The petitioner,

however, challenged the aforesaid proceeding by way of this application.

4. In the course of hearing of CRLMC, Mr.B.K.Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is one amongst three sister-in-law of the informant, but she has been falsely implicated in this case by way of unspecific and omnibus allegation against sister-in-laws without naming any one of them and the present petitioner is a differently abled married lady and her marriage was taken place prior to the marriage of the informant and thereby she had no occasion to commit any offence. It is also submitted for the petitioner by drawing attention to the copy of divorce petition filed by the brother of the petitioner stating therein that the informant had deserted him since 29.07.2018, but FIR was filed in the year 2021 even against his dead father and, therefore, the aforesaid ground clearly establishes that the informant has only lodged this case to harass the petitioner and since there is no iota of evidence available against the petitioner for any offence, the criminal proceeding against her may kindly be terminated. Mr.Mishra also relied upon some judgments of the Apex court and this Court to quash the criminal proceeding against the petitioner. Reliance has been placed on a very recent decision of Apex court in Abhishek v. State of Madhya Pradesh(Criminal

Appeal No. 1457 of 2015) to quash the present proceeding.

5. On the other hand, Mr.S.S.Pradhan, learned AGA, however, strongly opposes the prayer for quashing of proceeding against the petitioner merely on the ground that some omnibus and unspecific allegation have been raised against the petitioner, but he inter alia submits that the materials on records disclose a prima facie case against the petitioner for subjecting the informant to torture and cruelty. Accordingly, Mr.Pradhan prays to dismiss the CRLMC.

6. There appears no dispute about the present status of the petitioner to be the married sister-in-law of the informant, but the FIR suggests that the informant has more than one sister-in-law and there is omnibus and unspecific allegation made by her against the petitioner in the FIR. A perusal of the 161 Cr.P.C. statement of the informant would go to disclose some omnibus allegation against the sister-in-law without indicating the name of any of the sister-in-law. Besides, neither the FIR nor the 161 Cr.P.C. statement of the informant indicates any specific allegation of torture or cruelty meted to her by the petitioner. It cannot be forgotten that offence of dowry torture as contemplated U/S.498-A of the IPC. has often being misused against the in-laws and sometimes being used to over implicate the in-laws who are even not present in the scene of occurrence in the matrimonial house of the wife and

there is a growing tendency in the society to over implicate the relatives of husband who often resides in separate mess or even at a distant place than the matrimonial home of bride only to pressurize or harass the husband and his family members. In such situation, the Court has onerous duty to check the over implication of the relatives of 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 very crucial role, apart from the accused husband and, therefore, the Court should be very careful while dealing with the matter concerning matrimonial dispute between husband and wife to separate genuine case from the cases of over implication and vexatious cases.

7. On coming back to the case at hand, it has

already been stated that the informant has not taken

the name of the petitioner either in the FIR or in the

161 statement for inflicting torture to her for demand of

dowry. It is also not in dispute that the marriage was

solemnized in the year 2017, but the FIR was lodged in

the year 2021 and that too by making some unspecific

and omnibus allegation against the petitioner and her

dead father. Neither the FIR nor the statement of the

informant implicates the petitioner specifically for

subjecting the informant to torture and cruelty. What

would be the consequence of criminal proceeding

against the in-laws who have been roped in cases of

dowry torture on the basis of omnibus and unspecific

allegation has been succinctly explained by Apex Court

in Kahkashan Kausar @ Sonam and Others vs.

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

wherein 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

at paragraph-18 in the aforesaid decision has further

held as under:-

" 18.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".

Following the aforesaid decision in Kahkashan(supra), the Apex Court has reiterated the same principle for dealing with matrimonial disputes against the in-laws for unspecific and omnibus allegations in Abhishek(supra).

8. In view of the discussions made hereinabove and taking into consideration the principle reiterated by Apex Court in Kahkashan(supra) and Abhishek(supra) and there being some omnibus and unspecific allegation leveled against the petitioner without naming her either in the FIR or in 161 statement and the petitioner being the married sister- in-law of the informant, this Court does not find any justifiable reasons to summon the petitioner to face 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 the rest of the accused persons being not challenged may continue against them and the learned trial Court shall not be influenced by any of the observation made in this order while proceeding against other accused persons in the trial.

9. In the result, the CRLMC stands allowed, but in the circumstance there is no order as to costs. Consequently, the criminal proceeding against the petitioner in G.R. Case No. 587 of 2021 pending in the file of learned J.M.F.C., Purusottampur is quashed.

(G. Satapathy) Judge

kishore

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: KISHORE KUMAR SAHOO Designation: Secretary Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa Date: 05-Sep-2023 11:10:21