Orissa High Court
Truptimayee Pattanaik @ Archana vs State Of Odisha & Anr. .... Opposite ... on 25 February, 2025
Author: S.K. Panigrahi
Bench: S.K. Panigrahi
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
Date: 07-Mar-2025 17:59:27
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
CRLREV No.734 of 2024
(From the order dated 23.10.2024, passed by the learned J.M.F.C.,
Salipur, in G.R. Case No.496 of 2024, arising out of Salipur P.S. case
No. 109 of 2014 and 1CC Case No.230 of 2016)
Truptimayee Pattanaik @ Archana .... Petitioner(s)
@ Mani Pattanayak & Anr.
-versus-
State of Odisha & Anr. .... Opposite Party (s)
Advocates appeared in the case through Hybrid Mode:
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. S. K. Baral, Adv.
For Opposite Party (s) : Mr. Sonak Mishra, ASC
CORAM:
DR. JUSTICE S.K. PANIGRAHI
DATE OF HEARING:-03.02.2025
DATE OF JUDGMENT:-25.02.2025
Dr. S.K. Panigrahi, J.
1. In this Criminal Revision, the Petitioners challenge the order dated
23.10.2024, passed by the J.M.F.C., Salipur, in G.R. CaseNo.496 of 2024,
arising out of Salipur P.S. case No. 109 of 2014 and 1CC CaseNo.230 of
2016. The impugned order rejected the petition filed under Section 262
of the B.N.S.S. read with Section 239 of the Cr.P.C. The Petitioners had
sought discharge from the alleged offences punishable under Sections
498-A, 406, 323, 506, 34 of the IPC, 1860, read with Section 4 of the
Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
I. FACTUAL MATRIX OF THE CASE
2. The brief facts necessary for disposal of this CRLREV are as follows:
a. The brother of the Petitioner No.1, Durgasankar Nayak, married the
Opposite Party No.2 on 29.05.2012. However, marital discord arose
between them, leading to their prolonged separation.
b. On 11.07.2014, the Opposite Party No.2 lodged an FIR at Salipur
Police Station, alleging dowry-related harassment against nine
members of her in-laws' family, including the present petitioners
(Sister-in-law and Brother-in-law i.e., Nananda and Nanadei). Based
on the said complaint, Salipur P.S. Case No. 109 of 2014 was
registered for offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 323, 506,
and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, read with Section 4 of the
Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. Upon completion of the investigation,
the police submitted a charge sheet against only three accused
persons, namely, the husband, elder brother-in-law, and elder Sister-
in-law (Dedhasura and Jaa), while the remaining accused, including
the present petitioners, were discharged.
c. Aggrieved by the discharge of the other accused, the Opposite Party
No.2 filed a protest petition, which was registered as 1CC Case No.
230 of 2016.
d. The J.M.F.C, Salipur, vide order dated 24.09.2014, took cognizance of
the offences against all the accused persons named in the FIR.
e. On the date fixed for framing of charges, the petitioners, being
aggrieved, filed an application before the J.M.F.C, Salipur under
Section 262 of the B.N.S.S. read with Section 239 of the Cr.P.C.,
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
seeking discharge from the alleged offences. However, vide order
dated 23.10.2024, the J.M.F.C, Salipur, rejected the said application,
citing the existence of a prima facie strong suspicion against the
accused persons.
f. Aggrieved by the order dated 23.10.2024, the petitioners have
preferred the present Criminal Revision Petition.
II. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONERS
3. Learned counsel for the Petitioners earnestly made the following
submissions in support of his contentions.:
a. The petitioners contended that the J.M.F.C, Salipur rejected their
discharge petition under Section 239 of CrPC read with Section 262
of BNSS without proper application of judicial mind. Consequently,
the impugned order is legally unsustainable and warrants this
Court's interference.
b. The petitioners contended that they have no direct nexus with the
alleged offence. In the present case, no charge sheet was filed against
the petitioners; yet, cognizance was taken solely based on a protest
petition. The J.M.F.C., Salipur, failed to assign specific reasons for
rejecting the discharge application, reflecting a lack of judicial
scrutiny. The rejection of their discharge petition, despite the
absence of any incriminating material, is arbitrary and erroneous.
c. The petitioners placed reliance on the well-settled principle of law
that courts must exercise due caution while implicating distant in-
laws in matrimonial disputes. The petitioners, being distant-in-laws-
i.e., the married Sister-in-law (Nananda) and Brother-in-law
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
(Nanadei), residing separately in their matrimonial homes-ought not
to have been implicated.
d. It was further argued that the J.M.F.C., Salipur, erred in rejecting the
discharge petition on the ground that the statements of the
informant and witnesses, recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C.,
indicated the petitioners' involvement. However, these statements
were already on record as of 24.09.2024, when the court initially took
cognizance. The sudden shift in judicial stance, in the absence of any
fresh material evidence, renders the order arbitrary and legally
unsustainable.
e. Lastly, the petitioners contended that the impugned order suffers
from legal infirmity and, if allowed to stand, would result in a gross
miscarriage of justice. The prosecution's attempt to drag distant in-
laws into a matrimonial dispute amounts to an abuse of the process
of law. Therefore, the impugned order is liable to be quashed and set
aside.
III. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE OPPOSITE PARTIES
4. Conversely, the learned counsel for the Opposite Parties earnestly made
the following submissions in support of their contentions:
a. At the time of her marriage to Durgasankar Nayak, the Opposite
Party No.2's parents provided cash amounting to ₹80,000, along with
gold ornaments, furniture, utensils, and other household articles, in
compliance with demands made by her in-laws. However, soon after
the marriage, her husband and in-laws, including the present
petitioners, subjected her to sustained physical and mental cruelty,
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
accompanied by threats of dire consequences, in order to coerce her
into bringing additional dowry.
b. Immediately after the marriage, the accused persons, including the
petitioners, confined Opposite Party No.2 in a dark and unventilated
room for nine consecutive days, depriving her of basic necessities
such as light and air, despite the sweltering summer heat.
Furthermore, she was deliberately obstructed from accessing the
household articles gifted by her parents.
c. The Opposite Party No.2 is presently employed as a Sikhya Sahayika
at Bandalo Nodal School. Due to the unavailability of
accommodation, she was compelled to reside in a rented house at
Chhatia. Taking undue advantage of her situation, her husband
frequently visited her rented accommodation, forcibly took her
monthly remuneration, and subjected her to relentless physical
assault. The petitioners, in concert with other in-laws, allegedly
instigated her husband's actions, further aggravating her plight.
d. During telephonic conversations, the petitioners pressured the
Opposite Party No.2 to acquiesce to her husband's demands, warning
her that failure to do so would jeopardize her matrimonial life.
Additionally, the petitioners frequently visited her rented residence,
goaded her husband against her, and persistently insisted that she
secure a sum of ₹1,00,000/- from her parental home at the earliest.
e. The victim was categorically denied re-entry into her matrimonial
home, with the accused persons allegedly stipulating that she could
only return upon fulfilling their monetary demands.
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
f. Given the active role of the petitioners in perpetrating the alleged acts
of cruelty, harassment, and demands for dowry, the Opposite Party
No.2 had no option but to file a protest petition. The J.M.F.C., upon
perusal of the statements recorded under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C.,
found sufficient material to take cognizance of the alleged offenses.
g. The presence of a prima facie strong suspicion against the petitioners
warranted the rejection of their discharge plea. The J.M.F.C., Salipur,
meticulously examined the available material and, in light of well-
settled legal principles, rightly refused to discharge the petitioners by
passing a reasoned order on 23.10.2024.
IV. THE ORDER OF THE J.M.F.C SALIPUR
5. The J.M.F.C., Salipur, took cognizance of the case on 01.09.2022 and
accordingly issued the process, summoning the accused persons to
appear before the court.
6. It was observed that under Section 239 of the Cr.P.C., if, upon
considering the police report, accompanying documents under Section
173, and conducting such examination as deemed necessary, the
Magistrate finds the charge against the accused to be groundless, the
accused shall be discharged. The term 'groundless' signifies the absence
of any foundational facts or legal basis to sustain proceedings against
the accused.
7. The court referred to the decision in P. Vijayan v. State of Kerala &
Anr.1, where the Supreme Court observed as hereinunder:
(2010) 2 SCC 398
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
"If two views are possible and one of them gives rise to
suspicion only, as distinguished from grave suspicion, the trial
Judge will be empowered to discharge the accused and at this
stage he is not to see whether the trial will end in conviction or
acquittal.""Charge may although be directed to be framed
when there exists strong suspicion but itis also trite that the
Court must come to a prima facie finding that there exist some
materials there for. Suspicion alone, without anything more,
cannot form the basis there for or held to be sufficient for
framing charge "
8. The J.M.F.C., Salipur, meticulously examined the statements of the
informant and other witnesses recorded under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C.
and found that they prima facie indicated the alleged involvement of
the accused.
9. Given the existence of a strong suspicion, coupled with judicial
precedents and the material placed before it, the court found no merit in
the discharge petition and consequently rejected it.
V. COURT'S REASONING AND ANALYSIS
10. Heard Learned Counsel for the parties and perused the materials placed
before this Court.
11. The present revision petition challenges the order of the J.M.F.C.,
Salipur, rejecting the petitioners' application for discharge. The rejection
was based on the statements of the informant and other witnesses
recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C., along with other material placed
before it, which, in the trial court's view, raised a prima facie strong
suspicion against the petitioners.
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
12. Before evaluating the merits of the case, it is necessary to delineate the
legal principles governing discharge under Section 262 of the B.N.S.S.,
which is similar to Section 239 Cr.P.C. and provides as follows
"262. When accused shall be discharged.
(1)The accused may prefer an application for discharge within
a period of sixty days from the date of supply of copies of
documents under section 230.
(2)If, upon considering the police report and the documents
sent with it under section 193 and making such examination,
if any, of the accused, either physically or through audio-video
electronic means, as the Magistrate thinks necessary and after
giving the prosecution and the accused an opportunity of
being heard, the Magistrate considers the charge against the
accused to be groundless, he shall discharge the accused, and
record his reasons for so doing."
13. The jurisprudence on discharge stands well defined. The trial court,
vested with the authority to consider such an application, may sift and
weigh the material before it, but only to the extent necessary to discern
whether a prima facie case emerges. This power is not one of
meticulous scrutiny, nor does it invite the court to assume the role of
the trial forum. If the evidence, taken at its highest, kindles suspicion of
culpability, the court's duty is clear, it must frame charges and allow the
law to take its course.
14. In State of Delhi v. Gyan Devi & Ors.,2the Supreme Court observed as
hereinunder:
"7. ...The legal position is well settled that at the stage of
framing of charge the trial court is not to examine and assess
(2000) 8 SCC 239
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
in detail the materials placed on record by the prosecution nor
is it for the court to consider the sufficiency of the materials to
establish the offence alleged against the accused persons. At the
stage of charge the court is to examine the materials only with
a view to be satisfied that a prima facie case of commission of
offence alleged has been made out against the accused persons.
It is also well settled that when the petition is filed by the
accused under Section 482 CrPC seeking for the quashing of
charge framed against them the court should not interfere with
the order unless there are strong reasons to hold that in the
interest of justice and to avoid abuse of the process of the court
a charge framed against the accused needs to be quashed. Such
an order can be passed only in exceptional cases and on rare
occasions. It is to be kept in mind that once the trial court has
framed a charge against an accused the trial must proceed
without unnecessary interference by a superior court and the
entire evidence from the prosecution side should be placed on
record. Any attempt by an accused for quashing of a charge
before the entire prosecution evidence has come on record
should not be entertained sans exceptional cases."
15. It is well recognized that the presumption of innocence operates in
favor of the accused. However, at the stage of framing charges, a strong
suspicion, so long as it is based on material evidence, is sufficient to
proceed with the trial. In this regard, the function of the revisional court
is not to reassess the evidence or substitute its own view but to
determine whether the trial court committed any error in refusing to
discharge the accused.
16. It is further imperative to keep in mind that at the stage of discharge,
the court's inquiry is confined to whether a prima facie case exists, not
whether the evidence is conclusive. The role of this Court is not to
evaluate the merits of the case or encroach upon the trial court's domain
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
but to limit its examination strictly to the documents and materials
contemplated under Section 262 of the B.N.S.S/ Sections 239 of the
Cr.P.C.
17. Moreover, at the stage of discharge, the focus should be on whether a
prima facie case exists, not on whether there is 'clinching' evidence.
18. In this regard, the Supreme Court in The State of Orissa v. Pratima
Behera3, observed that meticulous consideration for presence or absence
of clinching material is beyond the scope of power of the Court while
considering the question of discharge under Section 239 of the Criminal
Procedure Code (CrPC). It elucidated as hereinunder:
"14. ...In the common parlance the word 'clinch' means
'point' or circumstance that settles the issue. We have no
hesitation to hold that such meticulous consideration for
presence or absence of clinching material is beyond the scope
of power of the Court while considering the question of
discharge under Section 239, Cr. P.C. as also while
considering the question of quashing of charge framed by the
Trial Court, while exercising the revisional jurisdiction. It is
to be noted that at that stage the materials collected by the
prosecution would not mature into evidence and therefore,
beyond the question of existence or otherwise prima facie case
based on materials, the question whether they are clinching or
not could not be gone into."
19. Turning to the present matter, a perusal of the J.M.F.C.'s order reveals
that the trial court duly considered the statements recorded under
Section 161 Cr.P.C. and other material placed before it before arriving at
its conclusion. Upon applying judicial mind, the trial court found
2024 SCC OnLine SC 3805
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
sufficient material to raise a strong suspicion against the petitioners,
necessitating the framing of charges.
20. The petitioners have primarily contended that since the charge sheet
did not originally name them as accused, the trial court ought to have
discharged them. While it is unequivocally true that courts must tread
with caution to ensure that no innocent person is unnecessarily
harassed, especially when they are merely distant relatives without any
nexus to the offence, it is well established that once a magistrate takes
cognizance, he takes cognizance of the offence and not merely of the
offenders named by the police. However, if the magistrate finds, upon
examining the material, that other individuals should also face trial, he
is duty-bound to proceed against them, provided there exists a clear
link to the alleged offence.
21. Upon perusal of the material placed before it, this Court finds no legal
infirmity or perversity in the reasoning adopted by the trial court. The
threshold for discharge under Section 239 Cr.P.C. is a charge being
groundless. In the present case, the trial court correctly applied the legal
principles and refused to pre-emptively stifle the prosecution's case at a
premature stage.
VI. CONCLUSION:
22. In light of the foregoing, it is evident that the mere absence of the
petitioners' names in the original charge sheet does not ipso facto entitle
them to discharge. Given that a prima facie strong suspicion emerges
from the material on record, this Court finds no legal infirmity in the
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
order dated 23.10.2024, passed by the J.M.F.C, Salipur. Accordingly, this
Court is not inclined to interfere with the impugned order.
23. Accordingly, this Revision Petition is dismissed.
24. Interim order, if any, passed earlier stands vacated.
(Dr.S.K. Panigrahi)
Judge
Orissa High Court, Cuttack,
Dated the 25th February, 2025
